FHWA Guide/CV for web.qxd - National Transportation Library

PRINCIPAL AUTHORSBenjamin G. Perez, AICPPB CONSULTGian-Claudia Sciara, AICPPARSONS BRINCKERHOFFWITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROMT. Brent BakerPB CONSULTKiran BhattKT ANALYTICSJames S. BourgartPARSONS BRINCKERHOFFJames R. BrownPARSONS BRINCKERHOFFGinger DanielsTEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTEHeather DuganCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONCharles FuhsPARSONS BRINCKERHOFFIra J. HirschmanPB CONSULTDavid KaplanSAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTSHal KassoffPARSONS BRINCKERHOFFKim KawadaSAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTSTim KellyHOUSTON METROStephen LockwoodPB CONSULTStephanie MacLachlinPB CONSULTCarol C. MartsolfPARSONS BRINCKERHOFFHameed MerchantHOUSTON METROJohn MuscatellCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONJohn O’LaughlinPARSONS BRINCKERHOFFBruce PodwalPARSONS BRINCKERHOFFRobert PooleREASON PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTEDavid PopePARSONS BRINCKERHOFFAl SchauflerPARSONS BRINCKERHOFFPeter SamuelTOLL ROADS NEWSLETTERWilliam StocktonTEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTEMyron SwisherCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSally WegmannTEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Chapter 1HOT Lane Concept and Rationale■■■■Pricing Systems: In order to maintainsuperior traffic service conditions, toll levelsare set to limit the number of users by willingnessto pay. The fee structure may befixed, varying by time of day, or dynamic,varying in response to real-time traffic conditions.In either case, higher tolls arecharged during peak demand periods.Information on toll levels is conveyed tomotorists through variable message signslocated near entry points.Toll Collection Procedures: In order toavoid the delays associated with manual tollcollection, HOT lanes rely on electronicpayment systems or paid monthly passesduring test pilot periods. Therefore, onlythose vehicles equipped with a transpondertag or valid permit may use the lanes.Vehicle Type: A range of management policiesmay be implemented related to vehicletype. Depending on local transportationgoals, low-emission vehicles, motorcycles,emergency vehicles, transit vehicles, taxis,and/or trucks may be allowed to use aHOT lane, either at no cost or for areduced fee.Access Points: HOT lane facilities are normallyseparated from general-purpose travellanes by physical barriers or lane markings.Access to the lane may be provided at intermittentpoints, but in many cases there maybe only single entry and exit points. Barrierseparation and the limited number of accesspoints are important tools for managingtraffic flows on HOT lanes.■■While some have relied on a monthly permitpayment system initially, they each utilizefully automated electronic toll collectionwith access restricted to HOVs andnon-qualified, paying vehicles equippedwith transponder tags; andAll systems have developed an “informationsystem” of fixed and variable signs to provideusers with information about access,occupancy requirements, hours, prices andenforcement.As experience with HOT lanes expands, theremay be additional convergence, with new standardsemerging for certain design and operationalfeatures.DifferencesIt should also be noted that the physical configurationand operational policies of thesefacilities are markedly different.■■■The facilities range from one lane to four—with or without reversibility.On the I-15 FasTrak in San Diego, HOVvehicles ride free, while all SOVs pay a toll.On the SR 91 Express Lanes in OrangeCounty, CA, HOVs pay reduced tolls, andin Houston, HOV 3 vehicles have freeaccess to the Katy Freeway and NorthwestFreeway QuickRide, while HOV 2 vehiclespay for use.Pricing policies include fixed differences byvehicle type and variations by time of day orlevel of demandSimilaritiesThe history of HOT lanes appears to have ledto some standardization regarding physicalconfiguration and operation of these facilities.■They are each physically separated from theparallel general-purpose lanes by continuousconcrete barriers or a fence of collapsiblepylons;■Ownership and operating structures mayalso vary widely and involving organizationsranging from for-profit, private sector developersto local planning organizations, transitagencies, and state departments of transportation(DOTs).Transport officials considering the use of HOTlanes should take note of these differences andrecognize that a great deal of flexibility is avail-4 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1HOT Lane Concept and Rationalethe potential to improve travel conditions for ameaningful segment of the driving public witha range of potential benefits:■■■■■■Trip Time Reliability: Traffic volumes onHOT lanes are managed to ensure superior,consistent, and reliable travel times, particularlyduring peak travel periods.Travel Time Savings: HOT lanes allowHOV and paying non-HOV motorists totravel at higher speeds than vehicles on congestedgeneral-purpose lanes.Reduced Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT):The addition of HOT options to an existingHOV facility may provide traffic serviceimprovements on congested general-purposehighway lanes. These improvementsalso have the potential to draw vehicles offof other parallel routes and improve overallflows and speed levels in the corridor.Revenue Generation: HOT lanes can providean additional source of revenue to supporttransportation improvements such asthe construction and operation of the lanesthemselves, or to address corridor transitneeds or other local demand managementstrategies. In areas with funding constraints,certain improvements might not be possiblewithout the additional revenue provided byHOT lanes.Transit Improvements: HOT lane revenuesmay be used to support transit improvements,and new HOT lane facilities providefaster highway trips for transit vehicles.Enhanced Corridor Mobility: Improvedtrip time reliability, higher speeds, traveltime savings, and possible transit improvementsall lead to greater mobility at the corridorlevel.■■■■■■Environmental Advantages: Compared togeneral-purpose lanes, HOT lanes may provideenvironmental advantages by eliminatinggreenhouse gases caused by stop-and-gotraffic, and by encouraging people to usecarpools and mass transit, thereby reducingthe number of cars on the road.Trip Options: In congested corridors withHOV facilities and transit service, HOTlanes provide SOV motorists with an additionaltravel choice: the option of paying fora congestion-free, dependable and fastertrip.Utilization of Excess Capacity: HOTlanes may provide an opportunity toimprove the efficiency of existing or newlybuilt HOV lanes by filling “excess capacity”which would not otherwise be used.New Interest in Managed Lanes: Byincreasing the traffic carrying capability ofHOV lanes, HOT lanes may make managedlane applications attractive in regions thatwould not otherwise consider them.Remedy for Under-Performing HOVLanes: In some areas there has beenincreasing pressure to convert under performingHOV lanes to general purpose use.HOT lane applications have the potential toincrease the number of vehicles traveling onunderutilized facilities and possibly reducepressure to convert them to general-purposeuse.New Interest in Value Pricing: HOT facilitiesdemonstrate the benefits of value pricingin transportation that may be transferableto a broader array of services.6 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 2The HOT Lane Planning andImplementation ProcessThe planning implementation process associatedwith HOT lanes is deceptively similar tothat of other highway improvements.However, there are a number of issues that arelikely to arise that may require special attentionand have the potential to introduce the unexpected.This chapter reviews the implementationprocess and identifies key elements thatare likely to be encountered along the way.2.1OriginationThe initial decision to consider HOT lanes isone of the most important milestones in theimplementation process. The decision to pursuea highway improvement is usually theresult of a search for a solution to a specifictransportation need. Therefore, it is helpful torecognize that there are a number of discernableconditions where HOT lanes can be particularlyeffective. They include the following:Lack of Free-Flowing Parallel RoutesHOT lanes work best in larger metropolitanareas on high density corridors where there arelimited travel options. The lack of free-flowingparallel routes, together with limited transitoptions, makes HOT lanes more attractive.Although there is some commuter rail service,the SR 91 in Orange County is located in acanyon with no parallel arterial or nearby parallelhighway. I-15 in San Diego runs throughMiramar Naval Air Station, which limits thepossibility of parallel access routes. When thereare limited travel options other than the highwaycorridor itself, HOT lanes offer motoristsand transit users another choice.Congested HOV FacilitiesHOT lanes can also be effective in situationswhere HOV lane demand exceeds the capacityof a single lane, but cannot by itself justify theexpansion of the facility by adding a secondHOV lane. Under HOT operation, additionalpaying vehicles would be allowed on to thelanes, making optimal use of the facility, whilefreeing some capacity on the existing generalpurpose lanes. As with the Katy Freeway inHouston, the HOT lane approach can also beeffective when implemented in conjunctionwith an increase in occupancy requirementsfrom HOV-2 to HOV-3 on congested facilitieswhere the addition of a new managed lane isnot contemplated.Underutilized HOV FacilitiesHOT lanes are appropriate in locations wheredemand for an existing HOV lane is below itsoperational capacity and where there is congestionduring peak periods on the parallel general-purposelanes. In such cases, additional payingSOV motorists may be allowed to use thefacility, with tolls set at levels that maintaindesired traffic service standards.2.2Implementation ProcessThe overall planning and implementationprocess for HOT lanes should be familiar tomost transportation professionals. As shown inFigure 1, the steps involved are similar to thoseassociated with any highway improvement. Theprocess can be described as follows:Pre-PlanningOnce the need for an improvement is identified,the responsible Department ofTransportation (DOT) identifies and reviewsconceptual, operational and physical solutionsfor their effectiveness, anticipated cost, ease ofimplementation, and acceptability to the public.The improvement is then weighed againstthe other needs facing the jurisdiction, andthen a decision is made whether or not to proceedwith the project.Pre-PlanningPlanningDesignProcurementConstructionOperationsFigure 1.HOT LaneImplementationProcessFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT7

Chapter 2The HOT Lane Planning and Implementation ProcessFigure 2.HOT LaneImplementationWork FlowsPreliminary InvestigationsInstitutionalPlatformOutreachDetailed PlanningConcensusPlanningIf a decision is made to proceed, the conceptualimprovements are narrowed and refined.The ability of a shortlist of more promisingalternatives to meet a variety of desired goals isthen assessed. The process culminates with theidentification of a preferred alternative, whichwould then be integrated into a region’sfederally mandated transportation improvementplans.Design and ProcurementIf a decision is made to proceed, the DOTcompletes detailed engineering and designstudies for the preferred alternative. When thisprocess is completed, the project is put out tobid, and a contractor is selected on a competitivebasis.BuildingFinal Design/ConstructionTechnicalStudiesOperationsDecisionnottoProceedConstructionDuring the construction phase, the contractorcompletes the required work according to thedesign and implementation schedule establishedin the construction contract. The DOTsupervises the construction and continues tooperate existing facilities while the improvementsare under way.OperationOnce the construction has been completed tothe satisfaction of the DOT, the new facilitiesare put into operation. The DOT normallyassumes responsibility for the physical maintenanceof the assets, and coordinates enforcementand incident management with theappropriate officials.2.3Unique Concerns Associated withHOT lanesThe development of HOT lanes often requiresmodification to existing highways where spaceis constrained and the use of sophisticated trafficmanagement and automated toll collectiontechnologies, providing the opportunity forsome DOTs to utilize new types of equipment.While these particular issues are not uniqueHOT lane initiatives, others are when comparedto typical highway or HOV projects.HOT lanes utilize traffic management techniques—pricingand occupancy requirements—in new ways, and in many jurisdictions HOTlanes may involve the introduction of tolls forthe first time. These facts may require DOTs toestablish new legal and institutional structuresand operational capabilities before HOT laneprojects can actually be implemented. Theymay also introduce unfamiliar project financingand operational approaches. Most importantly,they introduce public relations challenges thathave the potential to bring HOT lane initiativesto an abrupt halt at nearly any stage oftheir development.8 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 2 The HOT Lane Planning and Implementation ProcessPre-Planning PhaseIdentificationof NeedAssessTransportationSolutionsDecision to Investigate HOT Lane SolutionsPlanning PhaseAssessInstitutionalIssuesAssessOperationalStrategiesAssessPolitical/PublicAcceptabilityAssessPhysicalConstraintsDecisionnot toproceedIdentify HOTConcepts forFurther StudyPublicOutreachIdentifyInstitutionalStructureIdentify PreferredTechnologiesIdentify PreferredFinancingApproachIdentify PricingPoliciesDecisionnot toproceedDecisionto ImplementHOT ProjectPublicOutreachDevelop Pricing-Financing PlanEstablishInstitutionalFrameworkObtainEnvironmentalApprovalsRefineEngineeering/TechnologySolutionsEstablishOperationalRequirementsProcurement PhaseDecisionnot toproceedIssues Requestfor ProposalsPublicOutreachSelectContractor/ConcessionaireConstruction PhasePublicOutreachIdentifyInstitutionalStructureIdentify PreferredTechnologiesIdentify PreferredFinancingApproachOperational PhaseBegin OperationsFigure 3.HOT Lane Planningand ImplementaitonMilestonesMonitor/AdjustPricing PoliciesMaintain FacilityPolice FacilityCash Accounting10 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 2The HOT Lane Planning and Implementation Processvariably-priced tolls. Possible objectives includeone or more of the following:■■■■Maximum overall time savings (may includeeffects on both the HOT lane route and thealternative “free” facility);Maximum vehicle throughput subject totraffic level of service or minimum speedconstraints;Maximum person throughput subject totraffic level-of-service or minimum speedconstraints; andProfit maximization.Certain of these issues may depend on thenature of the facility’s owner and operator. Incases where the private sector is responsible fordeveloping and financing HOT lanes, theirmain objective may be to maximize revenuelevels. Public agencies implementing HOTfacilities may also be more focused on maximizingoperational efficiencies such asthroughput and travel time savings. However,it should be understood that profit maximizationshould generally coincide with the maximizationof operational efficiencies, such asthroughput and travel time savings.2.4.2Other HOT Lane DecisionsSeveral other important choices face transportationofficials and policy makers as HOTlane projects become more clearly defined.These decisions can have repercussions ondesign, as well as equity issues and are likely toinclude:1. Eligibility of vehicles. What size and type ofvehicles should be eligible to use the HOTlane? If demand exceeds supply, how shouldusers be selected?2. Toll collection. How should the toll collectionprogram be administered?Government agency (if so, which one?) or aprivate contractor under governmentcontract?3. Toll collection technology. Should the projectuse electronic toll collection or a permitdecal system?4. Intermediate access. What frequency ofaccess for buy-in vehicles should be permitted?5. Lane separation treatment. Should theHOV lanes be separated by a physical barrier,solid lines on the pavement, or no visibletreatment?FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT11

Chapter 3Organizational Frameworksfor HOT Lane ProjectsIn order to launch a HOT lane project, thereare several organizational issues that need to beresolved. These involve identifying a logicalproject sponsor, arranging funding, workingout operational protocols, and determiningwhat legal ramifications may be involved.Answers to these issues may not always beobvious. This chapter identifies the wide arrayof organizational issues that transportation professionalsmust address as they consider theimplementation of HOT lane projects.3.1HOT Lane Roles andResponsibilitiesWhile there is no single fixed approach forimplementing HOT projects, as shown inTable 1, there is a limited number of primarycapacities in which transportation agencies canbe involved in HOT lane projects.There is no set formula or norm for the institutionalarrangements supporting HOT laneprojects. Institutional structures will depend ona variety of factors and are likely to vary fromproject to project. In some cases, a singleagency, such as a state DOT, may fulfill allthree functions. In others, individual functionsmay be performed by individual agencies, privatecompanies, or partnerships among them.3.2Identifying a Project SponsorOne of the first and most important issues toresolve is the identification of a project sponsor.This is the agency that will implement theproject, execute planning studies, submit applicationsand environmental documentation, andoversee the construction and possibly the ultimateoperation of the facility. The implementingagency will need to be vested with, orobtain the legal authority to collect tolls and itwill need to function as a champion for theproject in order to garner the critical publicand political support needed to bring the HOTproject to fruition.When HOT lane projects involve the conversionof existing HOV facilities, existing organizationalarrangements are most likely to governthe operation of new HOT projects. Giventhat 95 percent of HOV lane-miles in theUnited States are managed by DOTs, responsibilityfor most HOV conversions is likely torest with the state DOT. Other corridors suitablefor HOT lane applications are likely toincluded highly constrained state or countyhighways.In either case, a long legacy of institutionalrelationships has already been established.Therefore, it is important to understand theserelationships, and then determine if any preexistingpolitical or institutional issues should beaddressed. As demonstrated by the nation’sfirst crop of HOT lane projects, a variety ofsponsoring and operating agencies may beinvolved. No single approach is preferable, anddecisions regarding sponsorship will ultimatelyreflect local conditions.3.2.1State Departments of TransportationAs the primary providers of highway serviceand owner/operators of a majority of thenation’s HOV lane projects, DOTs are logicalsponsors of new HOT facilities. They haveextensive experience in planning, designing,constructing, operating, and maintaining limitedaccess highways. They have the financialdepth to contemplate building new highwaycapacity and to obtain the expensive tollcollection and traffic monitoring systems thatmost HOT facilities require. DOTs also havethe power of eminent domain and manyDOTs are already operating HOV networkswith extensive electronic traffic monitoringcapabilities.12 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 3Organizational Frameworks for HOT Lane ProjectsWhile state DOTs have a wealth of highwayexperience, they may not necessarily have thelegal authority to levy tolls (see Section 3.4).Most have limited familiarity with the operationof tolled facilities and the sophisticatedelectronic toll collection traffic monitoring systemsthat HOT lane projects typically require,and in certain cases they may have limited legalauthority to privatize these operations. Tollroad operation also involves “back room”activities including auditing, credit card billing,and customer service, all of which may be newactivities for many DOTs.3.2.2Other Project SponsorsIn addition to state DOTs, there are a numberof other agencies that may play important rolesin the implementation of HOT lane projects,including:■■■■Turnpike and toll road authorities;Local transportation agencies;Transit agencies; andPrivate sector concession companies.The ramifications of involvement of these typesof organizations are discussed below.Turnpike and Toll Road AuthoritiesAs a precursor to the interstate highway program,many states developed turnpike and tollauthorities with specific legislative charters tofinance, build and operate limited access, highspeedhighways. While construction of theInterstate Highway System by state highwayagencies eclipsed the need for these authorities,most still serve their original roles. In additionto these turnpike authorities, fiscal constraintsin the 1980s and 1990s led to a revival of tollauthorities, especially in fast growing areas suchas California, Texas, Colorado, and Florida.Some of these authorities are state or countyagencies, while others are joint entities formedby multiple jurisdictions.RoleOwnerSponsorOperatorPrimary ResponsibilitiesThe agency that owns the facility to which the HOT lane will be added, andin whose name applications and other official documents are submitted.The organization charged with overall project implementation.Specific tasks include:• Completing technical studies• Submitting FHWA Value Pricing Pilot Program Application• Education and public outreach• Gaining project approvals from FHWA, environmental agencies, and others• Awarding and overseeing design and construction contracts• Arranging for HOT lane enforcement• Operating the HOT facility• Completing follow-up activities mandated by FHWA or the CongestionPricing Pilot ProgramThe organization responsible for the day-to-day operation of the HOT lane.Specific tasks include:• Toll collection and billing• Roadway and equipment maintenance• Monitoring and evaluation• MarketingIn certain cases, the involvement of turnpikeand toll authorities may facilitate the implementationof a HOT lane project. In additionto engineering and construction experience,they are already vested with the legal authorityto operate tolled highway facilities, therebyobviating the need to seek special authorizinglegislation. Turnpike and toll authorities havethe staff and systems in place to conduct all ofthe back room revenue handling and accountingactivities. In addition, many operate the advancedelectronic toll collection and traffic monitoringsystems that HOT lane networks require.While turnpike and toll road authorities offernatural advantages, they are not common in allareas across the country. In addition, if HOTlanes were introduced along untolled highwaysegments, they would not involve roads alreadyunder the control of such authorities.Nonetheless, given that motorists are accustomedto paying tolls to turnpike and toll roadauthorities, their involvement in the operationof HOT lane projects could help in gaining thepublic’s understanding and acceptance of thesepotential projects.Table 1.Primary HOT LaneRoles andResponsibilitiesFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT13

Chapter 3Organizational Frameworks for HOT Lane ProjectsLocal Transportation Agencies andAuthoritiesBased upon Section 450 of Title 23 of theUnited States Code, in order to receive Federalfunding for transportation projects all urbanizedareas in the United States are required tomaintain an MPO. MPO status is designatedby the United States Department of Transportationand is usually given to regional Councilsof Government or other joint powers’ authorities.These groups are generally governed by aboard of elected officials representing municipalgovernments within their jurisdictions, aswell as county officials, and local transit agencies.State DOTs are often represented on MPOboards by a non-voting member. The organizationalstructure of MPOs varies around thecountry and in certain cases MPO status isgiven to county or municipal governments.In some areas local authorities have been createdto assist MPOs in securing funding andimplementing projects identified through theMPO. These transportation or funding authorities,created at the county or regional levelunder varying conditions, can help in studyingthe merits of HOT lanes, securing funding fortheir implementation and assist in disbursementof net revenues collected.Given their regional mandate and their planningfunction, MPOs and local transportationauthorities may be logical sponsors of HOTlane initiatives. They have commissioned severalof the HOT studies that have been carriedout in California. Their active and consistentsupport is also essential if a new HOT facility isto be built, and local transportation authoritiesoften play a primary role in the initial planningstudies investigating the feasibility of HOTlane projects. Although most MPOs are likelyto lack operating experience or tradition, somemight play a further role in overseeing theimplementation and operation of a HOT facility,such as with the I-15 FasTrak HOT laneproject in San Diego, where SANDAG is theproject sponsor.Public Transit AgenciesIn Houston the Harris County MetropolitanTransit Authority (Houston Metro) partneredwith the Texas DOT in the Katy Freewayreversible HOT lane project. Public transitagencies present interesting opportunities forparticipating in HOT lane projects. Severaltransit agencies operate bus rapid transit orHOV facilities, which have excess capacity thatcould be sold to carpoolers, vanpoolers or singleoccupant vehicles. Utilizing additionalroadway capacity for other vehicles can helpwin political and public support and may limitthe need to add additional roadway capacity. Inthe same vein, the participation of transit agenciesin HOT lane projects sponsored by otheragencies highlights the potential for HOT laneprojects to provide opportunities for promotingreliable mass transit improvements. Finally,transit agency involvement in the developmentof HOT lanes may also help to introduce newsources of capital funds and in return, as withthe I-15 in San Diego, HOT lane revenues canprovide important new revenues to supportimproved transit service.It is important to note, however, that transitagencies would need to obtain the backing ofFTA before being able to launch a HOT laneproject on their own. To date, FTA has notallowed new start funds for facilities that wouldalso be open to SOV vehicles. The issue oftransit funding limitations has also arisen wheninvestigating the possible conversion of existingHOV lanes built with transit funding to HOTuse. For instance when considering the possibleconversion of HOV lanes on the I-25 north ofDenver in 2001, FTA found that allowing generaltraffic on an HOV facility would constitutea breach of its original agreements providingfunding for the lane. At that time the agencytook the position that the conversion could nottake place without the full reimbursement of itsoriginal $71 million contribution.Recent collaboration among FTA, FHWA, andCongress has led to an important policy14 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 3Organizational Frameworks for HOT Lane Projectschange on the part of FTA supporting theagency’s broader efforts to promote transitusage and encourage congestion management.Effective in Fiscal Year 2003 FTA will nolonger withhold formula funds for fixed guidewaytransit facilities that provide access to payingSOV motorists under the following conditions:the facility must be able to control SOVuse so that it does not impede the free flowand high speed of transit and HOV vehicles;and the toll revenues collected must be usedfor transit purposes. 2 This important policychange demonstrates growing support for theHOT lane concept within the transit sectorthat may lead to new opportunities for thejoint development of new HOT lane projects.Transit agencies remain logical partners in thedevelopment of HOT lane facilities, as they canhelp to pool resources and help to garner publicsupport for HOT lane initiatives.Early consultation with FHWA or FTA isstrongly recommended as an essential componentof any HOT initiative or study to determinewhether or not further federal review oranalysis would be required. The nature ofinterest from FHWA or FTA will depend onthe source of original funds used to implementthe HOV lane. It is also possible that an HOVconversion could involve facilities that wereconstructed using FTA funds. If this is thecase, similar issues could be raised with FTAand should be discussed early in the planningprocess.2Prior to this change the FTA viewed the definitionof “fixed guideway” contained in 49 USCChapter 53, as well as in the National TransitDatabase Reporting Manual as prohibiting any useby SOVs. This interpretation was applied to thecase of the I-15 FasTrak in San Diego, resulting inthe loss of formula funds for that facility followingits conversion to HOT use, which allowed SOVsuse the facility for a fee. This policy is documentedin FTA Administrator Jennifer Dorn’s June 10,2002 letter to Congressman Randy “Duke”Cunningham of California.Colorado Senate Bill 99-088, passed in June 1999 is of particular interest,as it requires the state DOT to pursue the development of a HOT laneproject in conjunction with a private investor-operator. The legislationstates in part:“The department shall issue a request for proposals to private entitiesfor the purpose of entering into a contract for the conversionof an existing high occupancy vehicle lane…to a high occupancytoll lane by a private entity; the department may convert or operatethe high occupancy toll lane, or both, in the event that noproposal by a private entity for such conversion or operation isacceptable.”In response, the Colorado DOT has evaluated the conversion of portionsof the Boulder to Denver I-25 HOV lanes, to a HOT lane operation. Ithas also received a non-solicited offer to add HOT lanes to the I-70between Downtown Denver and Denver International Airport.3.3Private Sector InvolvementThe fact that HOT projects generate toll revenuesalso introduces the possibility that underthe right conditions they could be financiallyindependent or even profitable ventures ofpotential interest to private investors. 3 The conversionof existing HOV lanes to HOT use hasthe greatest potential to be attractive to privateinvestors, as the associated costs are likely to besignificantly less than building new lanes. AHOT lane conversion project involves theinstallation of electronic toll collection equip-3Although privately financed motorways are commonin countries around the world, they have notgenerally been favored in the United States. Thefollowing privately financed toll roads operating inthe United States—the Dulles Greenway inLoudoun County Virginia, the Camino Colombiain Webb County, Texas, the Foley BeachExpressway in Baldwin County Alabama, and theSR 91 Express Lanes (a HOT lane facility) inOrange County California. An additional project,the SR 125 connecting south eastern San Diegowith the Mexican border is also likely to be built.The Southern Connector in Greenville, SouthCarolina and the Pocahontas Parkway in thegreater Richmond area in Virginia have also beenfinanced on a limited recourse basis through publicbenefit 63-20 corporations.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT15

Chapter 3Organizational Frameworks for HOT Lane ProjectsPotential Trade-offsInviting private investment in a HOT facility may also involve a sponsor’srelinquishing its own authority to intervene in the same corridor. Forexample, the contract governing the private financing and construction ofmedian toll lanes on the SR 91 in Southern California, required CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans) to agree to non-compete provisionslimiting its authority to make improvements or add capacity in theSR 91 corridor. Publicly funded improvements in the congested corridorwould harm the private owner’s ability to recoup investment in the HOTlanes. When Caltrans moved in 1999 to add general-purpose lanes instrategic locations on SR 91 to improve on and off ramp movements, theprivate owner sued to stop the plans. Caltrans ultimately withdrew itsplans, but the non-compete agreement proved contentious. Interestingly,the planned sale of the SR 91 to the Orange County Tollroad Authoritywould render the non-compete provisions null and void.ment, road sensors, signage, and perhapschanges to ramp and barrier configurations;yet, given the right conditions such a facilitycould generate significant revenue. One keyissue facing decision makers is whether to forgousing that revenue to support transit or otherpublicly provided transportation enhancementsor to offer it instead to a private concessionairewho would finance and operate the HOT lane.Private sector investment in HOT lane projectsinvolving significant new construction is likelyto prove more challenging. The feasibility ofattracting private participation depends on thebalance between the cost of financing, building,and operating the facility and the revenuesit would generate.Private sector involvement can be an attractiveoption for transportation agencies, as it providesaccess to additional sources of capital.This allows DOTs to reserve their own fundsfor other needs and often accelerate the implementationof partnership projects. Private operatorsare motivated to maximize efficiency inorder to maximize profits, and their services—both capital construction and roadway operating—oftenbring good value for money.Private operators often offer an advantage intheir attentiveness to quality of service as wellas marketing activities, as witnessed by the customerservices offered by the SR 91 ExpressLanes. On the down side, financing terms forprivate investors may not always be as attractiveas those available to the public sector, and havethe potential to offset other efficiencies.3.4Determining Legal Authorities andRequirementsThe implementation of a HOT facility is likelyto require legislative action to clarify a widerange of management and operational issues.Several issues may be involved.Tolling AuthorityOne of the first issues that will need to beinvestigated is whether or not the authorityexists to implement tolls. Title 23 of the U.S.Federal Code prohibits the implementation ofnew tolls on the Interstate Highway Systemwhere user fees are not currently charged. 4However, TEA-21 introduced two pilot programswhich allow the implementation of tollson the Interstate system on a trial basis: theFHWA Value Pricing Pilot Program, whichallows real-time, variable pricing, and theInterstate Toll Pilot Program, which permitsflat-rate tolls to raise needed revenue, but notnecessarily to reduce congestion. These programsremain in force through mid-2004, afterwhich a new multi-year authorization act willdictate transportation policy. 5 During the TEA-21 period, if HOT lanes are considered on anyportion of the Interstate Highway System theymust be implemented through the ValuePricing Pilot Program. Following reauthorization,any future HOT lane projects implementedon the Interstate Highway System will needto conform to the tolling policies established inthe new authorization act. Existing HOT Lane4Title 23 grandfathers the collection of tolls onthose portions of the Interstate system operated bypreexisting turnpike and toll road authorities.16 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 3Organizational Frameworks for HOT Lane Projectsprojects implemented through the FHWAValue Pricing Pilot Program on the are consideredto retain their authority to toll unlessthere is a specific legislative change thatremoves that authority.HOT lane projects must also comply with stateand local laws on toll collection. In many statesthe authority to collect tolls on state highwaysand other roads does not exist, and when suchauthority does exist, it is likely to be limited toroads operated by a designated turnpike or tollroad authority. If a proposed HOT lane projectis not located along an existing facility operatedby one of these agencies, legislative provisionswill have to be made to allow for the collectionof tolls on the new facility.Variable Pricing AuthorityTrust agreements governing the operation ofmost toll roads only allow flat point-to-pointtoll rates (i.e., a consistently applied toll ratefrom point A to point B). If a HOT lane projectinvolves variably priced tolls, legislation mayneed to be drafted that establishes how andwhen toll rates can be changed and establishesthe minimum acceptable traffic service levels inthe HOT lane.These issues should be addressed in theenabling legislation that will establish the legal5Authorizing legislation for highways began withthe Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 and the FederalHighway Act of 1921. These acts provided thefoundation for the FAHP as it exists today. TheFAHP has been continued or renewed through thepassage of multi-year authorization acts ever sincethen, which has altered the program as well as suppliedfunding. In addition, since 1978, Congresshas passed highway legislation as part of larger,more comprehensive, multi-year surface transportationacts, such as TEA-21, which was enacted onJune 9, 1998, and covers the six-year periodthrough mid-2004, or the Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act, (ISTEA) which wasenacted in 1991 and then extended for an additionalone-year period in 1997.and regulatory framework for the HOT facility.Because HOT lane operations require a highdegree of interagency cooperation and sharedresponsibility, enabling legislation should designatethe operating agency or agencies and outlinetheir specific responsibilities in such areasas construction, maintenance, toll collectionaccounting, and enforcement. If the HOTfacility were to be operated by a bi-state organization,approvals would be required from theUnited States Congress, as well as both statelegislatures. Similarly, parallel legislation isrequired to establish an authority operating tollfacilities connecting two countries.Privatization AuthorityUse of private financing mechanisms for transportationfacilities can occur only when thenecessary legal authority exists and governinglegal principles and restrictions are observed.Local governments not only must have thelegal power through constitutional or statutoryprovisions to finance transportation facilities,but they must also use this power within thelegal restraints established by legislatures andcourts. The methods of granting power andthe limitations on that power vary widelyamong local governments.Several states now have special public-privatepartnership (PPP) legislation designed toauthorize state DOTs and other subdivisions ofthe state to enter into new forms of legalagreements with private entities in support ofrevenue-generating projects which are consistentwith each state’s overall transportationobjectives. Most of this legislation has been orientedtowards enabling states to capitalize onthe provisions within ISTEA authorizing statesto make loans or grants of Federal-aid to publicor private entities for the purposes of tollroad or HOT lane development. This type oflegislation must be in place before a HOT laneconcession can be awarded to a privateinvestor.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT17

Chapter 3Organizational Frameworks for HOT Lane ProjectsToll Agency Legislation ChecklistThe enabling legislation for any toll agency is unique, but there are manycommon provisions that are likely to be addressed, including the following:■ Creation of an authority or commission, including the legal nameand nature of the newly created entity;■ Scope, purpose, and function of the new entity;■ Definition of terms;■ Delineation of district within which the entity operates;■ Details about the entity’s governing board, including the number,composition, selection or appointment process, compensation, andterm of members, voting/procedural rules for governing boardaction, and meeting requirements;■ The legal powers of the commission/authority, including the abilityto establish rules and regulations, hire employees, sue and be sued,enter into contracts, construct facilities, acquire property, use thepower of eminent domain, and impose fees;■ The authority to issue and refund bonds and use tolls and revenuesin associated trust indentures,■ The authority to set and revise tolls and any applicable guidelines orformulas,■ The ability to invest bond proceeds;■ Administrative requirements, which may include periodic audits,competitive bidding, annual reports, public notice and/or hearingrequirements;■ Any constraints or rules on the use of funds;■ The rights and remedies of bondholders;■ Tax-exempt status of authority property and bonds;■ The venue and jurisdiction of legal actions against the authority/commission;■ Police powers;■ Operating, maintenance, and repair obligations; and■ Relationship to other entities, e.g., for oversight, reporting, etc.In addition to these typical provisions, an enabling act may have non-competitionsections, which guarantee to the new entity that no new directlycompeting facility will be authorized by the state. Other legislation is likelyto be required to cover issues such as:■ signing to the road from the rest of the network;■ advertising controls on the road;■ operational procedures (such as arrangements for emergency vehiclesand information disclosure rules, which are particularly importantwhere tolls are levied electronically);■ defining the enforcement regulations for non payment;■ the use of cameras to enforce occupancy requirements;■ provisions for land acquisition and clearance; and■ structure for involvement of the private sector in the provision ofroads.3.5Operational ArrangementsOnce the HOT lane is operational, a numberof ongoing operational functions will berequired. These involve routine roadway maintenance,as well as toll collection and enforcement.These functions, particularly the lattertwo, pose differences from normal highwayoperation and are discussed in further detailbelow. Operational functions may be performeddirectly by the public or private ownerof a HOT lane facility, or contracted out to anoutside vendor specializing in automated tollcollection or facility management.Toll CollectionBy their definition, HOT lanes require the collectionof tolls from motorists not meetingoccupancy requirements. Moreover, in order tomaintain the time savings and ease of use theyare meant to afford, toll collection for HOTlanes must be fully automated. As discussed infurther detail in Chapter 5, the operation ofautomated tolling systems requires sophisticatedequipment and expertise. Although sometoll collection agencies maintain this expertisein-house, the majority rely on the services ofoutside contractors to maintain their automatedtoll collection systems. If a HOT lane projectis sponsored by a state DOT, it is also conceivablethat the DOT could vest responsibilityfor toll collection with a local turnpike or tollroad authority with the appropriate expertise.Interoperability is also another critical toll collectionissue. For toll roads, it is normallyadvantageous for automated toll collection systemsto be interoperable from region toregion. 6 This argument can also be made forHOT lanes. However, in certain cases, a HOT6For example motorists can utilize the E-ZPasstechnology on toll facilities in New York, NewJersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut.E-ZPass holders can also use their transponders onthe Massachusetts Turnpike, and MassachusettsFastLane tag holders also enjoy reciprocal privilegeson all E-ZPass facilities.18 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 3 Organizational Frameworks for HOT Lane Projectslane operator may want to limit the availabilityof transponders as an additional means to manageoverall access to the HOT lane.It is advisable to consider possible operationalarrangements for toll collection up front. Thefollowing questions should be answered:■■■■■■Does the region have a preferred automatictoll collection system?What agencies maintain those systems?Which agency/agencies will function asHOT lane sponsor, owner, and operator?Are there existing interoperability agreementsin place?Is there an existing protocol for introducingautomated toll collection on new facilities?Is interoperability advantageous?EnforcementPlanning for a HOT lane should include earlyinvolvement of the appropriate police agencies.If the HOT lane will pass through several jurisdictionswhere each may take an active investigativeand enforcement role, then planningshould include early agreements to establishresponse and enforcement protocols. If theHOT lanes will be added to an existing facility,then the police agencies will have considerableexperience on that roadway.Additional information on enforcement issuesis provided in Section 5.3MaintenanceResponsibility for the physical maintenance of aHOT lane is most likely to rest with the agencythat maintains the corridor in which the facilityis located. In most cases this is the state DOT,but other agencies could also be involved. Ifmultiple agencies are responsible for differentoperating aspects, agreements will need to beput into place identifying roles and responsibilitiesas well as reimbursement.3.6Federal Assistance3.6.1The FHWA Value Pricing Pilot ProgramUnder Section 1216(a) of TEA-21, publicagencies interested in implementing and evaluatingHOT lane initiatives are eligible to applyfor grants under the Value Pricing PilotProgram. The purpose of the program is todemonstrate and evaluate pricing concepts,such as HOT lanes, that have the potential toreduce highway congestion. The Value PricingProgram has dedicated funds available to supportHOT lane studies, as well as the implementationof actual projects, and through itagencies may obtain the authorization to introducenew tolls on Interstate Highway System.If the system will have a limited number ofaccess and egress points, then agreements maybe needed to consolidate enforcement responsibilitiesunder a small number or one policeagency. If only one police agency is involved,the transportation agency should request that aliaison be assigned to ensure continuity ofinput during the planning process. This earlyinvolvement can be invaluable for resolvingdesign issues for enforcement locations, investigationsites, and enforceable signing. Thepolice liaison can also be a significant help iflaw or procedure changes are needed beforeenforcement can be undertaken.Information on the types of projects that areeligible for funding through the program aswell as the application procedure are availablein the Value Pricing Pilot Program’s May 7,2001 notice in the Federal Register. This informationremains current until the next multiyearTransportation Authorization Act takesforce in mid-2003, which will likely addresspricing programs.3.6.2Available ResourcesIn addition to this guide, the following technicalresources are available through FHWA:FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT19

Chapter 3Organizational Frameworks for HOT Lane Projects■Comprehensive information on HOT lanesand other value pricing initiatives may beobtained from the value pricing homepageat http://www.valuepricing.org. This is operatedby the University of Minnesota’s Stateand Local Policy Program.■ Federal Register notice of May 7, 2001[(Volume 66, Number 88), pages 23077-23081, provides a summary of the TEA-21Value Pricing Pilot Program and establishesbroad criteria for participation.■The activities under the TEA-21 ValuePricing Pilot Program are summarized inthe FHWA’s Report to Congress, June2000 and a similar report to be released in2002.More general information about HOT lanesand the Value Pricing Pilot Program may beobtained from either of the following offices:Policy IssuesOffice of Transportation Policy Studies, HPTSFederal Highway AdministrationWashington, D.C. 20590Tel: (202) 366-4076Operational IssuesOffice of Travel Management, HOTMFederal Highway AdministrationWashington, D.C. 20590Tel: (202) 366-6726■Pricing project planning guidelines are summarizedin an FHWA report: Guidelines forProject Development, Revised InterimReport, FHWA, August 1996.20 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4Achieving PublicAcceptanceEffective outreach is an essential element ofHOT lane planning and implementation. Basicpublic awareness of HOT lanes in general, aswell as political and popular support for theparticular proposal in question can facilitateefforts to implement HOT projects. Tolledhigh-occupancy facilities are a very new conceptin transportation. Steps to familiarize thegeneral public as well as local elected officialswith HOT facilities and the specific rationalefor proposing them may assist those outsidetransportation planning and engineering circlesto evaluate a local HOT proposal. Withoutsuch outreach, the public may greet the introductionof a HOT facility with indifference orcaution.Carefully planned and executed public outreachcan play a critical role in helping thepublic (1) to understand how a proposedHOT facility would work, (2) to evaluate theadvantages it might offer, and (3) to accept theHOT facility as a new travel option.4.1Outreach for HOT lanesWhile they will utilize many of the same techniquesto exchange information, public outreachactivities designed for HOT lane initiativesneed to be different from those designedfor more conventional transportation improvements.An Overview of OutreachPublic outreach has long functioned as an integral part of the transportationplanning process in the United States. The process is well knownamong DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations. Following mandatesinitially established under the National Environmental Protection Act(NEPA) in the 1970’s and strengthened under the Statewide andMetropolitan Joint Planning Regulations of October 1993, departments oftransportation around the country must provide the public with informationon transportation improvements under consideration in their jurisdictions.The feedback they receive from the public is used to refine theirplans and ultimately implement more effective projects. Information andfeedback are exchanged through a variety of ways, including public meetings,focus groups, newsletters, websites, and formal hearings. Both FHWAand FTA have performance measures to track the effectiveness of outreachefforts.EducationFirst, HOT lanes themselves are a new conceptin most places, and public outreach for HOTproposals will necessarily involve a larger educationalcomponent than do traditional transportationprojects. HOT lanes are unlike conventionalroad improvements—such as roadwayresurfacing or reconfiguring an interchange—wherethe public may readily understandthe future benefits. HOT lanes’ marketorientedapproach to allocating roadway spacemay be a new concept to the public, and educationis needed to distinguish HOT facilityuser fees from ordinary tolls. Where the publicknows that HOT facility tolls purchase premiumtraffic service, reliable trip times and timesavings, support for HOT facilities may begreater. Therefore, effective public outreachefforts for HOT projects will communicate thecritical function of user fees, how and bywhom tolls will be collected, and how toll revenueswill be spent.EquitySecond, because HOT lanes provide payingdrivers the opportunity to bypass congestion,some critics have asserted that HOT facilitiesfavor higher income individuals. In spite of thisconcern, HOT lane usage data show that driversin all income brackets use and support thefacilities.Local political support plays a key role in buildingconsensus for HOT lane initiatives amongthe public. Where local constituents are concernedabout equity, it is especially importantto address in outreach efforts how the proposedHOT project may impact people in dif-FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT21

Chapter 4 Achieving Public AcceptanceExisting Public Outreach ResourcesMany resources discussing public outreach for transportation projects are readily available, including an existing body of literatureaddressing public outreach for HOV facilities. Some of these materials include:■ Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking (1996)It has long been a challenge to grab and hold people’s interest in a project or plan, convince them that active involvementis worthwhile, and provide the means for them to have direct and meaningful impact on its decisions. The FHWA andFTA published the guide Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking in September, 1996 to provideagencies with access to a wide variety of tools to involve the public in developing specific plans, programs, or projectsthrough their public involvement processes. It discusses a wide variety of subjects, including Civic Advisory Committees,Public Meetings/Hearings, Negotiation & Mediation, and Improving Meeting Attendance. This document is availableelectronically at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm.■High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Marketing Manual—DOT-T-95-04 (FHWA), U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal Highway Administration (Sept. 1994)One of the most comprehensive resources addressing the marketing and outreach needs associated with managed lanes,this 250-page document was produced for FHWA by independent consultants in close cooperation of the TransportationResearch Board Committee (TRB) Committee on High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems and other experts. It providesdetailed information on all aspects of outreach campaigns, from constituency building, to goals formulation, marketingmaterials, and media and community relations. It also detailed case studies of both successful and unsuccessful marketingefforts, as well as suggestions for monitoring and evaluating marketing campaigns.■ The HOV Systems Manual, NCHRP Report 414This comprehensive manual is an essential resource for all transportation officials contemplating HOT lane projects. Itprovides direction to both transit and highway professionals in planning, designing, implementing, operating, marketing,and enforcing HOV systems. The manual is also useful to those charged with achieving air-quality and congestion-managementgoals. The HOV Systems Manual reflects real-world experiences, addresses all current issues, and promotes consistencyand effectiveness in future HOV applications. The manual covers all types of HOV facilities and includes, but isnot limited to, the following: policy considerations, planning, design, operation and enforcement, support facilities andservices, implementation considerations, marketing, and evaluation. It is available from the Transportation ResearchBoard.■■Improving the Effectiveness of Public Meetings and Hearings, Publication No. FHWA-HI-91-006, U.S. Departmentof Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (January 1991)This guidebook focuses on the development and implementation of creative and realistic approaches to the preparation,conduct, and follow-up of public meetings and hearings. It introduces a variety of techniques and processes based on thepractical community involvement experience and a review of public meeting and hearing materials developed by statehighway and transportation departments. It discusses such basic meeting and hearing elements as appropriateness of notificationprocedures; format; exhibits; handouts; presentations; and meeting conductor or hearing officer.http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/nhi.htmlTransportation Research Board's Committee on Public Involvement in TransportationThe mission of TRB’s Committee on Public Involvement in Transportation is to enhance the understanding, acceptanceand practice of public involvement as an art and science in transportation planning and project development activities byfostering research, identifying best practices, promoting use of new technologies, promulgating standards, and upgradingpublic involvement skills of transportation professionals. The committee’s website provides a library of technical papersand case studies providing best practices and guidance on public participation techniques and approaches.http://trb-pi.hshassoc.com/22 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4Achieving Public Acceptanceferent income ranges. Local officials and publicfigures who can defuse equity debates withusage data may be more successful projectchampions.For example, in June 2001 Governor ParrisGlendening of Maryland backed away fromefforts to study or implement HOT facilities inMaryland, maintaining that it was “unfair tolink an easier commute with a person’s abilityto pay; our goal is to ease congestion for all.”The Governor’s decision demonstrates the vulnerabilityof HOT lane projects to politicaldecision making and underscores the importanceof communicating the facts about HOTlanes early and effectively to politicians andother stakeholders.Section 4.3.6 discusses equity aspects in greaterdetail.4.2Project Champions and Their RoleA prominent project champion can be one ofthe most instrumental factors in garnering supportfor a HOT facility proposal or its implementation.A public champion may be an electedofficial, a community leader, or private sectorleader who effectively communicates anindividual or organizational rationale for supportingthe project. Although local departmentsof transportation, transportation authorities,MPOs will likely serve as HOT lane sponsors,respected public figures who are nottransportation professionals can play a criticalrole by supporting the project.Public champions may guide the developmentof HOT lane projects during critical publicoutreach processes. In some cases, a projectchampion may also be influential in politicalprocesses if the HOT project requires legislativeaction or if it is debated in public elections.Project champions also act as effective coalitionbuilders for a project, building consensusamong different interest groups.Multiple ChampionsBecause HOT lanes often must receiveapproval at various stages and at various levelsof government, it can be advantageous if severalindividuals champion the project. Some maybe successful at building support for the initiativelocally, and others may help to make a casefor the project to governors, mayors, U.S. representativesand senators.Political ChampionsElected officials may emerge as important projectchampions, making the inclusion of electedofficials in outreach efforts important for projectplanning. When formulating a position onthe lane, politicians may consider the projectfrom numerous angles, including its impact onconstituents and its effect on local governanceand finance. Outreach to elected officialsshould discuss an array of issues about the proposedinitiative, including any impacts thatlocal constituents may experience as a result ofthe project. Other issues that elected officialsmay consider when deciding whether to backthe project include:■■■■■■■■the disposition of toll revenues;increased public spending;increased public revenues;alternative financing scenarios;competing transportation needs;competing transportation projects;their own political capital; andrelationships with other officials andpolitical jurisdictions.Early ChampionsEarly involvement by a project champion canbe advantageous. A particular group or individualmay step forward to express initial interestin and support of the proposal, or projectsponsors may seek proactively to identifypotential project champions early in the publicinvolvement process. In some cases, championsmay come from organizations and interestgroups that are non-traditional supporters ofroadway projects. For instance, if a HOT laneproject promises to deliver environmentalFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT23

Chapter 4Achieving Public AcceptanceRoad Pricing and Eledted OfficialsThe Transportation Research Board’s Variable Pricing Political OutreachSubcommittee has completed a comprehensive study of the relationshipbetween road pricing and elected officials. In 2001, the subcommitteeconducted interviews with transportation professionals involved with everyroad pricing study or implementation project in the United States. Electedofficials were also contacted in order to gain an understanding of theirreactions and opinions on the 16 pricing projects included in the survey,six of which involved HOT lanes. The following findings are excerptedfrom the Subcommittee’s August 2001 report, “Road Pricing & ElectedOfficials.”■■■■Political support is key to the successful implementation of variable pricingprojects in the United States. All projects that have resulted in actualimplementation to date can point to one or more elected individualsthat championed the use of pricing as an effective method for addressingthe growing gap between transportation demand and the availablesupply. Many of the projects that have not been successful can point toelected officials that actively blocked project implementation.The value pricing concept has gained more recognition and acceptancenationwide, although the understanding that a project works somewherein the United States does not mean the constituents of a localcommunity will readily accept the concept.The issues are similar in most projects, but vary in level of emotion indifferent locations.The importance of educating all stakeholders cannot be understated….There appears to be a strong correlation between the knowledge of andsupport for variable pricing projects.Identifying Potential ChampionsTable 2 highlights some groups whose leadersmay play the role of champion, depending onthe circumstances of the project. When anticipatingresponses from different stakeholdergroups, it is important to recognize that supportfor or opposition to a HOT project maydepend on project circumstances. For example,a HOT operation proposed to regulate overorunder-utilization of an existing HOV lanemay be received differently by different groupsthan a proposed new lane addition. 74.3Public Acceptance of HOT lanes:The IssuesDuring the public outreach process for a proposedHOT facility, certain issues not associatedwith conventional highway improvementsmay be of keen interest to the general publicand particular stakeholder groups. It is advantageousfor project planners to ascertain theconcerns of various stakeholders in advanceand address them proactively in the public outreachprocess. The following issues may arise:■■■■■■■■■■Project Travel BenefitsOther Travel ImpactsProject Funding BenefitsUser FeesProject CostSocial EquityGeopolitical EquityDisposition of Toll RevenuesTechnologyEnvironmental Issues■It appears the best way to assist in the development of political championsand increase the likelihood of success is to communicate with theaffected politicians early and often…. This enables officials to understandthe concept and shape its application in their community beforehaving to take a position for or against a specific pricing application.benefits, groups like the Sierra Club orEnvironmental Defense may lend theirsupport.HOT facility planners and sponsors who considerin advance the range of public concernsand questions that could arise will be betterequipped to understand the public’s concernsand to take the appropriate actions within theoutreach process. The case studies found inChapter 7 of this document explain the variousissues and concerns that have arisen in responseto the HOT lane projects and studies theydescribe.In addition to the discussions provided in this7The five case studies presented in later in Chapter7 document the roles that various project championshave played in the development of the HOTlane initiatives described.24 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4Achieving Public Acceptancemanual, HOT facility sponsors may also wishto confer with colleagues in other regions thathave pursued HOT lane initiatives. These peerexchanges can provide valuable insight into theissues encountered, the public outreachapproach followed, and what might have beendone differently in hindsight. FHWA’s Officeof Travel Management can help to identify usefulcontacts. http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/travel/.The Hubert Humphrey Institute’s ValuePricing Website, http://www.valuepricing.org,also provides comprehensive information onprojects utilizing the value pricing concept,including the nation’s four HOT lane facilities.4.3.1Project Travel BenefitsAs with any investment of public funds, constituentsand stakeholder groups have animmediate interest in the benefits that a HOTfacility may brings. Project sponsors who candiscuss the specific advantages anticipated froma HOT facility can more easily communicatethe project’s rationale to a variety of publicinterests. Communicating the projected benefitsplays an especially important role in regionswhere HOT concepts may not be widelyknown or understood due to their newness.GroupNewspaper Editorial BoardsLocal MediaPoliticiansAmerican AutomobileAssociation (AAA)Environmental AdvocatesTaxi AssociationsTransit Agencies; TransitAdvocatesEmergency Medical Service/Police and Fire DepartmentsRideshare Agencies,Transportation ManagementWhy They May SupportMedia support may come where the project andrationale is well understood and whereeditorial boards believe the project benefitsand deserves support of their readers.Politicians may support if they favor the HOT lanes’market-oriented approach HOT facility benefits, ifthey want an innovative project in their district, or iftheir constituents support the proposal.HOT facilities may promise better mobility for theirmembers.If a HOT project converts an existing generalpurposelane, it could make single-occupant autotravel less attractive.Taxis that use a HOT lane may be able to generatemore fares in less time during peak periods.In corridors without preferential lane treatment forHOVs or transit, transit operators may support HOTlanes due to transit time savings.A HOT facility may enable emergency services torespond more quickly to incidents.For an over utilized HOV lane changing from 2+ to3+ HOT operation, HOT lane tolling Associations mayenable the facility to recapture operational benefits.■■■Time Savings: Travel time savings for thosewho are willing to pay for it are a hallmarkbenefit of HOT facilities. Fees for the facilityare structured in a way that preservesuncongested traffic service on the facility,ensuring that users will not lose time in trafficjams.Trip Time Reliability: Because the facilityis operated to maintain a certain level oftraffic service, users can count on predictableconditions and travel times. Userswith personal or professional time constraintsor those who simply prefer thepeace of mind of a predictable journey willfind the facility a great advantage.Trip Choice: A HOT facility creates a newtravel option that a motorist may use or notuse, depending on a highly individualizedEmployers; Business GroupsDevelopersNeighborhood Associationsdecision at the time the trip is made. Ifunder pressure to arrive punctually at thedestination, a motorist may choose to usethe facility. If time pressure does not influencethe travel choice, the motorist maychoose the general-purpose lanes. Evenwhen drivers choose not to use the facility,many motorists value having this choice.Employers and business may support HOT lanes forthe potential to make transportation operationsmore efficient and to reduce delay time.Developers may support HOT facilities that enhanceaccess to office buildings, shopping centers,residences or other locations they own.Area residents may support the HOT facilityif it enhances their mobility and travel options.Table 2.Identifying PotentialHOT Lane ChampionsFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT25

Chapter 4 Achieving Public Acceptance■Enhanced Corridor Mobility: HOT facilitiesenable more people to travel through acorridor in fewer vehicles and under bettertravel conditions. This advantage may interesttransportation officials to a greaterdegree than the public at large, but somelocal constituents may also appreciate efficiencyimprovements in the transportationsystem.4.3.2Other Travel ImpactsIn corridors with a HOT facility, drivers seldomchoose to makes all trips in that corridoron the HOT lane itself. Instead, they willdecide to pay to use the facility when they wishto guarantee their trip time or avoid congestion.At other times they may risk congestedconditions in lieu of paying the fee to use theHOT lane. Therefore, even regular HOT laneusers are still likely to make many of their tripson the parallel free facility or general-purposelanes.Accordingly, project planners may use the publicoutreach process to address how the proposedHOT facility will affect travel conditionsfor non-users. The travel impacts on adjacentfacilities will depend on the nature of the HOTfacility itself.■■New HOT Facility: Where a HOT facilityprovides new traffic lanes in a corridor, thefacility brings the benefits of any roadwaycapacity. Studies of the SR 91 corridor showthat a diversion of some traffic from thegeneral purpose lanes to the Express Lanessubstantially improved peak period travelconditions in the general lanes. Additionally,the addition of the SR 91 HOT lanes alsohad the effect of shifting some traffic backto the state highway from parallel citystreets.HOT Facility Converted from ExistingHOV-Lane: Conversions of HOV lanes toHOT lanes may be contemplated when anexisting HOV lane is underutilized. Theconversion can optimize utilization of themanaged lane, eliminating motorist complaintsabout the underutilized HOV facility.The HOV conversion can also enhancetravel conditions in the corridor at large.The new capacity provided by the HOT facilitywill attract some vehicles formerly using thegeneral-purpose lanes into the HOT lane. Thismay cause some vehicles to shift from localarterials to the general-purpose highway lanes.In some cases a modal shift from single-occupantvehicles (SOVs) to HOVs or transit mayalso result. 8 These shifts typically increase overallcorridor person-throughput—a benefit thatis attractive to transportation professionals andenvironmentalists alike.In spite of additional usage, the HOT facility ismanaged with tolls to ensure that the HOTlane provides premium service for all users.Facility operators may also combine vehicleoccupancy requirements with tolls to managedemand, rather than relying on tolls exclusively.This may be attractive when a highly utilizedHOV facility is converted to HOT operations.4.3.3Project Funding BenefitsSome constituents and stakeholders will alsohave an interest in the financial dimensions ofthe project. One of the primary financialadvantages of HOT lanes is their potential togenerate revenue.■Revenue Generation. Because HOT facilitiesimpose a fee for use, they have thepotential to generate revenue that usuallydoes not exist with conventional roadwayprojects. Depending on how project sponsorspropose to use the revenue, the generatedfunds can support the timely constructionof the proposed facility, the construc-8A shift from SOVs to carpools or transit wouldoccur if solo-drivers capitalized on reduced rate orfree usage of the HOT lane, or if the travel timesavings of transit vehicles in the HOV lane attractedsolo-drivers to transit.26 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4 Achieving Public Acceptancetion of other transportation improvementsin the area, transit needs in the corridor, orother potentially beneficial local investments.A comprehensive discussion of HOT facilitybenefits, including their financial benefits, isincluded in Chapter 1; however, public outreachefforts may begin by working with ashorter list than in Chapter 1. Stakeholdersmay be unmoved by a long list of allegedadvantages if they do not understand howthose benefits arise or their value to users.4.3.4User FeesIn addition to the potential benefits of revenuegenerated by a proposed HOT facility, stakeholderswill wish to know about the nature ofthe user fees themselves. Many questions arelikely to arise.“How much will it cost?” The public willperhaps have the greatest interest in knowinghow much it will cost to use the proposedfacility. Because HOT facility fees usually varydepending on the time of day and associatedcongestion levels, HOT facilities involve anadditional dimension for public outreachefforts regarding tolls. Informational materials,public presentations, and news articles discussingthe proposed facility can explain itsinnovative approach to tolls. Project sponsorswill need to work not only with communitygroups, but also local elected officials and areanewspapers to ensure that all understand thedynamics of the proposed tolling structure.“If the price changes by the time of day,how will I know how much it costs?” WhenHOT tolls are based on real time travel conditions,additional public education is needed.Materials and presentations can explain that thecurrent toll will be clearly posted on digitalmessage boards at all entrances to the facility. Itis important to communicate that motoristswill always be informed of the current toll ratebefore having to choose to use the HOT facility.When posted clearly prior to HOT facilityentrances, this information allow drivers todecide whether or not to use the facility.“Can you tell us now what the tolls willbe?” Although potential users may inquireabout the proposed toll amounts, fee schedulesare often developed later in the HOT facility’splanning. In earlier planning stages, outreachefforts may discuss the potential range for fees,if appropriate. However, as described inSection 5.3.2, formulating an effective tollschedule often involves marketing surveys ofpotential users, and final toll levels may beundetermined in early phases. Moreover, oncethe facility opens, facility operators may have toadjust toll fees in order to control the level oftraffic service on the facility. Where a facilityuses real time dynamic prices, tolls are postedbut no advance toll schedule is used. Projectplanners can use the public outreach process todescribe how fees are established and, whereappropriate, to discuss overall ranges for thepotential fees.“Are drivers paying for premium service?”The rationale for tolls on a HOT facility is differentfrom that of traditional tolls.Historically, tolls have developed as a means topay for the construction, operation and maintenanceof the roads and bridges where theyare collected. HOT facility tolls, however, havean added dimension. The fee paid by HOTlane users not only allows the driver to use thefacility, but also ensures the driver will benefitfrom a high level of traffic service. Public outreachefforts can convey the message that driversare paying for time savings and trip timereliability.“Will I have to wait in line at a toll booth?”Finally, stakeholders may also raise the issue oftoll collection. Manual toll collection is associatedby many with long delays at toll plazas;however, high-speed electronic toll collection(ETC) is standard practice on all current HOTlane demonstrations. As a vital component ofFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT27

Chapter 4 Achieving Public AcceptancePricing: A Familiar ConceptAlthough HOV lanes or toll roads may not exist in a given region, theconcept of paying for premium service does. For example, air passengersare accustomed to paying higher fares during high travel seasons whenthere is much demand for flights. Or, telephone charges are often highestduring the day, when there is most demand for placing calls. While driversmay perceive tolls as a cost, many would value travel time savings associatedwith HOT facility fees. If asked, “Would you pay two dollars to save 30minutes consistently on your evening commute?” many motorists wouldanswer, “Yes.”HOT projects, ETC deserves elaboration inthe public outreach process. Motorists have agreat stake in ETC’s capacity for eliminatingdelays and making toll collection invisible andeasy.4.3.5Project CostThe public may also be interested in the capitalconstruction cost of the facility. They will wantto know where the money to build the HOTlane is coming from and whether or not theproject will be paid for from the toll proceeds.Project sponsors may wish to introduce a numberof facts about the proposed project,including:■■■■■range of cost estimates;potential funding sources;potential borrowing arrangements;anticipated toll revenue; andproposed disposition of toll revenue.4.3.6EquityBecause HOT lanes create the opportunity forpaying drivers to avoid congestion, some criticshave charged that the facilities are elitist andserve primarily affluent users at the expense ofmiddle- and low-income motorists. Evidencecollected to date, however, suggests that suchperceptions may not reflect actual experience.Outreach efforts that to listen to the public’sconcerns, address equity questions directly, andcommunicate experiences from operating HOTfacilities can allay local concerns that HOTproject benefits may be enjoyed unevenly.Lexus Lanes?Actual data on HOT lane use discredit the“Lexus Lane” critique. Studies of the SR 91Express Lanes indicate a statistically significantcorrelation between income and frequency oftoll lane use. 9 While the data indicate the proportionsof commuters who choose theExpress Lanes increase with income, commutersof all income levels use the lanes. Highincome individuals (those with annual incomesgreater than $100,000) utilize the toll lanes atgreater rates than lower income individuals,but lower and moderate income individualsalso make substantial use of the toll lanes.Although roughly one-quarter of the motoristsin the toll lanes at any given time are in the topincome bracket, data demonstrate that themajority are low and middle-income motorists.The benefits of the HOT lane are enjoyedwidely at all income levels.Lower income motorists may use the HOTlane periodically, when circumstances dictatethat the reliability of their trip time is moreimportant than under ordinary circumstances—forexample, when critical appointmentsloom, or when day care facilities chargefees for late pick-up of children. The sameapplies to self-employed contractors and othersmall business people, who must make appointmentson time or risk lost business.Geopolitical IssuesConcerns may also arise if a proposed facilityappears to favor one geographic region overanother. For instance, the location of limitedentry and exit points on the HOT facility maybe contentious, as all communities may wish tohave easy access to the facility. In this case, the9State of California, Department ofTransportation, Continuation Study to Evaluatethe Impacts of the SR 91 Value-Priced ExpressLanes: Final Report, December 2000.28 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4 Achieving Public AcceptancePublic Support for the HOT Lane ConceptAs in San Diego, public opinion research conducted around the country demonstrates that thepublic understands the value of pricing concepts and that a majority of motorists in many congestedareas would be willing to pay for improved travel conditions. These results demonstratethat the public may be more willing than its political leaders to support HOT lane projects.Minneapolis-St. PaulIn January 2002 a private Minneapolis-based agency completed a random sample of1000 Twin city adults to invsetige public reaction to proposals that would create newsources of revenue for transortation projets. 57 percent of the respondents support havingan option to pay a fee to use an uncongested freeway lane when in a hurry. 24percent of the respondants strongly supported the concept. As a point of comparison, awell promoted gas tax increas received the support of 52 percent of the respondants,while a sales tax increase garnered a 53 percent support level. These results demonstratethat pricing user fees are a vaiable option to taxes. Survey organizers were particularlyencouraged by the resuts because an earlier HOT lane proposal was droped dueto the perception that there was no public support for the concept.Lee County, FloridaIn Lee County, Florida—an area that has used value pricing as an effective tool in managingbridge traffic across it’s barrier islands—transportation officials are studying“Queue Jumps.” These facilities would involve elevated ramps or at-grade lanes thatwould allow paying motorists to bypass congestion for a fee. Tolls would vary by timeof-dayor degree or in accorance with congestion levels and would be collected electronicallyusing the county’s existing LeeWay system. Mail-back surveys investigatinglocal residents’ opinion of the concept were distributed to drivers stopped at fiveinteresctions in Lee County in February 2002. Residents were also able to downloadthe survey from the Internet. Of 1,739 surveys received, 59 percent of all respondentshad a favorable opinion of the Queue Jump concept (23.5 percent stongly approved).In an off-topic discussion initiated by participants in a follow-up focus group, 100 percentof the participants supported a new north-south tollroad in mid Lee County,which would provide premium service to those willing to pay for it.SeattleIn Seattle both the I-5 and I-90 have auxiliary “Express Lanes” parallel to the mainlinehighways. These reversible facilities and provide extra capacity in and out of Seattleduring peak commute hours, and are partially reserved for HOVs. Transportation officialshave investigated the possibility of expanding the Express Lane network and makingthe system available to HOV and paying SOV motorists. A statistically valid telephonesurvey of 1,161 Puget Sound Region residents in Washington State in May2001 revealed that 41.4 percent of respondents were willing to pay tolls for faster trips,with over one quarter of respondents (26.3 percent) indicating they would be willingto do so up to three times per week. Contrary to the the notion that only the moreaffuent woud be willing to pay a toll for a faster trip, the Seattle survey found no statisticallysignificant difference between income and willinness to pay tolls. Additionaly,48 percent of the respondents supported varying toll rates by the time of day as ameans to manage traffic flows.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT29

Chapter 4 Achieving Public AcceptanceFair Lanes: An Alternative Value Pricing StrategyIn response to equity concerns associated with HOT Lanes projects, transportationprofesssionals in Maryland, Texas, Georgia, and Alameda Countyin California are studying the Fast and Intertwined Regular Lane (FAIRLane) concept as an alternataive way of implementing value pricing projects.The concept involves separating congested freeway lanes into two sections—Fastlanes and Regular lanes—using plastic pylons and striping. TheFAIR Lane approach is different from HOT lanes in that it allowsmotorists traveling on the Regular lanes to earn credits toward use of the“priced” Fast lanes or transit.The Fast lanes would provide premium travel conditions and would beelectronically tolled, with tolls set in real time to maintain free-flowingcondtions. Variable message signs would advise motorists of the toll ratechanges. In the Regular lanes, where constricted flows would continue,drivers with electronic toll tags would earn credits that could be usedtoward for future use of the Fast lanes or to fares when they opt to useimproved transit service.With FAIR lane operations, motorists could choose to pay for the premiumFast lane service, or they could choose to remain in congested trafficbut earn credits toward the future use of the Fast lane or transit servicesoperating on it.While the FAIR lane concept has been discussed at seminars and professionalmeetings, it has not yet been implemented on a specific corridor.public outreach process is the appropriateforum for community stakeholders, projectplanners, and politicians to address the issue.The collaborative nature of the public processcan be used to identify measures to counterany geographic concerns.San Diego I-15 Express Lane SurveyAn 800-person telephone survey of I-15Express Lane users completed in the summerand fall of 2001 demonstrates that motorists ofall income levels recognize the benefits ofHOT lanes. The following survey results showthat the equity concerns are not shared byactual HOT lane users and other motorists inSan Diego:■■■■■66 percent of drivers who do not use themsupport the I-15 Express Lanes;73 percent of non-HOT lane users agreethat the HOT lane reduces congestion inthe corridor;89 percent of I-15 users support the extensionof the Express Lanes;The extension of the Express Lanes was thetop choice of both HOT lane users andnon-users for reducing congestion in thecorridor; and80 percent of the lowest income motoristsusing the I-15 corridor agreed with thestatement that, “People who drive aloneshould be able to use the I-15 Express Lanesfor a fee.” Despite equity concerns that havebeen raised in locations without HOTlanes, low income users in San Diego weremore likely to support the statement thanthe highest income users.As demonstrated by surveys conducted inWashington, Minnesota and Florida, a majorityof motorists in many congested areas would bewilling to pay to avoid congestion, with no statisticalcorrelation evident between income levelsand willingness to pay.4.3.7Disposition of Toll RevenuesBecause HOT lanes produce revenues, a numberof policy questions and administrativeissues come to the fore. Depending on thelocale, community stakeholders and electedofficials may have a keen interest in how thetoll revenues will be spent. Some communitiesmay be more accepting of the facility if thegenerated revenues are used only for a dedicatedpurpose or a specific initiative, while othercommunities may support using the fees tosupport the general fund.■91 percent of those surveyed think thattravel time savings options provided by theI-15 Express Lanes are a “good idea”;Some HOT lane projects have sought to userevenues first and foremost to pay for implementationand administration of the lane. The30 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4 Achieving Public Acceptancedisposition of surplus or net revenues thenbecomes a question for project sponsors.In project applications to date, HOT toll revenueshave been used to:■■■back bonds issued to fund constructionof the HOT lane facilities;pay for operation of a HOT lane facility;andfund transit services in the HOT corridoror the region.4.3.8Technology ConcernsElectronic toll collection has grown increasinglycommon in the United States, known in differentregions by names like E-Z Pass andFasTrak. Nonetheless, project planners shouldnot assume that the public is familiar with thisnew technology. Public outreach efforts providevarious opportunities to introduce theproposed toll collection technology to potentialusers. Project sponsors need to explain howthe proposed ETC system will work, includingthe role of an electronic transponder, the functionof HOT facility entry and exit gantries,the administration of pass-holder accounts, andthe protection of individual privacy. Privacy is akey concern commonly associated with ETCsystems. Outreach materials should address thisissue and provide detailed information on themechanisms used to protect the privacy ofmotorists’ movements, as well as their financialand credit card information.Additionally, once the HOT lane is unveiled,the initial performance of the ETC system willbe of paramount importance. If toll collectionsnags occur during the project’s launch, usersmay be unforgiving.Project Spotlight: I-15, San Diego, CaliforniaThe I-15 HOT facility in San Diego offers an example of an HOV laneconversion that included transit improvements. The original HOV laneswere funded partially with transit monies, and project sponsors sought tolaunch an express bus as part of the pricing program. Today, I-15 FasTrakrevenue funds the Inland Breeze bus service in the HOT lane corridor.FasTrak revenue pays for roughly $430,000 per year in operating costs and$60,000 for facility enforcement provided by the California HighwayPatrol. State law requires the remaining revenue to be spent improvingtransit service along the I-15 corridor. This innovative arrangement playeda large role in the political acceptability of the project, and it is one way toaddress transit concerns when a HOT project involves an HOV-lane conversionand when the support of local transit authorities and other officialsfor the HOT lane is important. By dedicating all or a portion of HOT lanerevenues to local transit services, a project may be perceived as more equitableand win greater approval.Ensuring Personal PrivacyAlthough electronic toll collection has proven very popular among drivers,some perceive the electronic tracking of vehicles as an invasion of privacy.Tolling agencies have addressed this issue by linking the transponder with ageneric, internal account number that does not reveal the driver’s identity.Driver information is not disclosed to other organizations. Public outreachefforts can generate confidence in the technology by explaining to thepubic how their privacy is protected with these systems.4.3.9Environmental ConcernsFinally, it should be recognized that HOTlanes are likely to provide environmentaladvantages by eliminating greenhouse gasescaused by stop-and-go traffic, and by encouragingpeople to use carpools and mass transit,thereby reducing the number of cars on congestedcorridors. In addition, the conversion ofexisting HOV facilities to HOT operationinvolves limited amounts of new construction,limiting environmental concerns associatedwith the construction of additional lane capacity.As with any transportation improvement, outreachactivities should include clear informationon the environmental effects associated withthe HOT lane projects. Environmental advocatesare likely to support HOT lane initiativesand, when given the right information, havethe potential to become important projectadvocates garnering additional support for newHOT lane projects.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT31

Chapter 4 Achieving Public Acceptance4.4Building Political ConsensusPublic outreach efforts establish meaningfulprocesses for public participation in the planningand implementation of transportationprojects and ensure that the different stakeholdershave a voice in the planning process.This enables diverse interests involved to arriveat a transportation solution that is broadlyaccepted and beneficial.As discussed earlier in Section 4.2, the backingof political champions is often an essential elementin building political consensus. Greaterinvolvement by local and regional officials andstakeholders, in early planning stages andonward, may increase the effectiveness of publicoutreach efforts for HOT lane facilities.Including a broad spectrum of stakeholders inthe public outreach can be critical. In manycases, a single decision maker, such as a governoror mayor, may be in a position to derail orbolster the proposed HOT project. Greaterinvolvement by local business leaders, communitygroups, and other public officials in projectplanning helps to ensure that key decisionmakers will consider the broad range of interestswhen they take a position on a proposedHOT project.In using the public outreach process to buildconsensus, planners may attempt to anticipatethe concerns of specific interest groups. Anunderstanding of what aspects of HOT projectsmay be more or less attractive to differentgroups can be valuable to project sponsors.Certain stakeholders and interest groups with adefined agenda may support or oppose HOTlanes depending on their priorities, and somegroups may feel differently from others aboutthe proposal depending on how their town orcounty may be affected by the project. Whensponsors understand constituents’ concerns,the public outreach process can be tailored toensure that those issues are addressed and todiscuss how those concerns will or could beaccommodated within the proposed project.Existing experience suggests the following arekey objectives for successful consensus buildingactivities:■■■Identifying and coordinating with affectedjurisdictions and agencies;Cultivating project champions; andEmploying stakeholder advisory committees.4.4.1Stakeholder CoordinationIn reaching out to local communities; politicalgroups and organizations; elected officials; andneighboring cities, town, and counties, projectplanners should include all potential stakeholders.No segment of a community likes to beleft out or surprised, and early efforts at inclusivenesswill help to establish channels of communicationat the outset of a HOT project.Potential StakeholdersAs a first step, project planners should identifythe various stakeholders who will be impactedby or may have an interest in the project.Ensuring Personal Privacy. Although electronictoll collection has proven very popular amongdrivers, some perceive the electronic trackingof vehicles as an invasion of privacy. Tollingagencies have addressed this issue by linkingthe transponder with a generic, internalaccount number that does not reveal the driver’sidentity. Driver information is not disclosedto other organizations. Public outreachefforts can generate confidence in the technologyby explaining to the pubic how their privacyis protected with these systems.■■■■■■■■■local residentsneighborhood groups and associationselected officialsneighboring counties, municipalities,or townsassociations of governmentsmetropolitan planning organizationsarea businesseschambers of commercetourism representatives32 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4 Achieving Public AcceptanceStakeholder coordination should continue■ developers■ walk-in office/customer service center;Because HOT facilities are generally constructedwithin or parallel to existing roadways, driv-■ telephone information/service line; and■ project websites. 10 ers in the corridor may choose which facility to■ local and state departments oftransportationthroughout project implementation. Ensuringthat technical work does not outpace constituency■ local and regional transportationprovidersbuilding is a prudent approach thatkeeps state, county and local politicians■ local and regional transit providers (publicand private)informed of project activities on a regular basis.■ local and regional tolling authorities 4.4.2■ rideshare coordinatorsCitizens’ Advisory Committee■ public agencies (for land use and airquality)One option for formalizing public participationis through a citizens’ advisory committee. Such■ emergency service providerscommittees can be effective outreach tools and■ environmental groupsthey may be particularly useful for HOT lane■ transit rider groupsinitiatives. Participants can be drawn from a■ automobile clubsvariety of groups in the early planning stages,■ taxi associationsand the committee can help guide the public■ labor interestsoutreach process through later phases of planning■ trucking interestsand implementation. The group can be an■ newspaper reportersimportant resource for identifying issues that■ newspaper editorial boardsoutreach efforts should address and for connecting■ think tanksproject sponsors with area communitygroups and other organized stakeholders. AnSharing InformationKeeping the variety of stakeholders welladvisory committee can also help to identifyand recruit political champions.informed during the initial project planning,review, implementation, and operation isimportant for consensus building. Project plannersand spokespeople can use a variety ofmethods to keep stakeholders involved andinformed. These may include:4.5Marketing and Refining theConceptUltimately, the success of a HOT facility willdepend on drivers who are willing to pay touse it. In fact, some HOT facilities refer to■ advance notice for public meetings;users as subscribers, pass holders, or customers,■ public meetings;indicating that the HOT facility has a clientele■ brainstorming sessions/group problemand that drivers generally must acquire an electronictag for automated toll collection insolving;■ newsletters;order to use the facility.■ e-mail lists;use: the general-purpose lanes or the HOTfacility. HOT project planners thus face a challengethat is unique in highway facility plan-10See for example: http://www.houmetro.harris.tx.us/services/quickride.asp(Katyning: to cultivate users for the facility. MostFreeway); http://argo.sandag.org/fastrak/ (I-15FasTrak); http://www.91expresslanes.com/ (SR-91highway or transportation officials traditionallyExpress Lanes); and http://www.valuelanes.com/- have not had to advertise or market their facilities,index2.html (I-25 corridor in Denver).but marketing is an important element ofFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT33

Chapter 4 Achieving Public AcceptanceWhen to Market?Although marketing is often perceived as advertising a final product, HOTfacility marketing is not a one-time venture. Marketing efforts will be moreproductive if they are employed well in advance of the facility’s openingand if they continue even once the facility begins operation. Early marketingstudies provide important opportunities to gauge the HOT lane’spotential for success, as well as to improve the project’s chances of success.From the earliest planning phases, multiple marketing opportunities existto gather information from the public about potential usage and to provideinformation to the public about the proposed facility. Marketingefforts in later project phases, even after operation has begun, can assessuser satisfaction and attract additional users.HOT projects. For this reason, some transportationagencies developing HOT lanes havesought the services of marketing professionals,including surveying and advertising firms.The marketing aspect of HOT facility planningis directly related to project feasibility.Marketing efforts can address how and whydrivers may opt to acquire a user tag and HOTfacility account, and under what circumstancesthey will choose to use the HOT facility for agiven trip. After the facility is operating, marketingtechniques can be used to increase thenumber of users, address customer satisfactionissues, and to keep drivers well informed of anyplanned operational changes.At various phases of the HOT lane implementationprocess, project marketing efforts mayneed to focus on different issues. Although thebasic marketing objectives outlined below followa general chronological evolution, theanswer to later questions may draw heavilyfrom what is learned during earlier marketingefforts.Learning About the PublicLearning about project stakeholders will providea foundation for the entire outreachprocess. Determining the level of awareness ofand knowledge about HOT lanes by differentgroups will provide direction for HOT lanemarketing initiatives and parallel public outreachefforts. For example, an initial survey ofarea households could gauge public knowledgeof the HOT concept, public attitudes towardsvalue pricing, and public preferences andbehaviors. Such a survey could identify whatand how much education is needed, and howcurrent HOT educational efforts could be tailoredto meet public needs.Determining the MarketOne of the most important issues that must beaddressed in the early planning phases forHOT lane projects is determining the marketand overall feasibility of a proposed project.What corridors and origin-destination pairswould be appropriate for the HOT lane facility?Who might use the HOT facility underconsideration? What factors might make a drivermore or less willing to pay to use the facility?Where should access points be located orhow should toll collection be managed? Whenthis market exploration is done properly, projectplanners are more likely to design a HOTfacility that the public wants to use. Theseinquiries also supply technical experts with theinformation necessary (i.e., volume and revenueassumptions) to assess the fundamentalfeasibility of different project alternatives.Publicizing the FacilityOnce a facility has been approved and is underconstruction, project planners may turn theirfocus to publicizing the coming facility. Someproject sponsors have relied on direct mailingsto potential user households. Radio and othermedia advertisements have also been used.Press releases announcing the new facility maydraw coverage in local and regional newspapers,and many HOT facility sponsors have alsolaunched dedicated websites providing informationand applications for using the facility.Maintaining Customers and AttractingNew UsersOnce a HOT facility is operational, maintainingcommunication with the public must be apriority. Facility managers need to know34 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4 Achieving Public Acceptancewhether current customers are satisfied withthe facility and related services, and communicatewith users when any facility changes areanticipated. For example, within one year ofopening, a facility may require adjustments tothe toll schedule to manage current traffic levels.Established lines of communication withcustomers can be used to describe whatchanges are anticipated and why they may benecessary. Some facilities have relied on regularnewsletters, and websites with customerupdates are also popular. Continued marketingis also relevant in efforts to increase the numberof facility users.Figure 4.I-15 brochuresMarketing ToolsMarketing professionals offer a range of servicesand methods for reaching the public to meetthe needs of HOT facility planning. The followinglist, while not exhaustive, provides variousexamples of marketing tools that may findapplication in HOT lane planning, implementationand operation:■■■■■■■telephone and paper surveys;focus groups;direct mailings;project websites;project newsletters;radio and television ads; andnewspaper coverage.Figure 4 shows informational materials developedfor the I-15 in San Diego, while Figure 5provides screen capture of the SR 91 ExpressLanes Homepage.Media RelationsAlthough media outlets are not stakeholders inthe conventional sense, they belong among thelist of contacts that warrant inclusion in publicoutreach efforts. Establishing media relationshipsearly on in a project can help to ensurethe facts about the proposed project are publicized.A variety of media relation strategies areidentified in the HOV Marketing Manual.Figure 5.SR 91 websiteFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT35

Chapter 4Achieving Public AcceptanceAchieving Consensus: Key Objectives for the Project Sponsor4.6Towards ConsensusUltimately, the goal of a public involvementprogram in support of the HOT lane conceptis to achieve consensus on a program of action.While one segment of the population maystrongly favor HOT lanes, another segmentmay feel it derives little benefit from the proposedfacility. As with any proposed transportationimprovement, HOT lanes may have documentedpotential for technical and operationalsuccess, but may not find unanimous approvalamong constituents in the corridor.Stakeholders may posses a range of opinionsabout the HOT facility, but consensus on acourse of action is more likely if the public hasbeen engaged in all the issues and if stakeholdersagree upon the following:Project sponsors that manage inclusive, responsive and effective outreachto stakeholders establish their own legitimacy and the legitimacy of thetechnical analyses, decision-making, and public processes that support projectimplementation.Be ResponsiveGet to know all the potentiallyaffected interestsUnderstand the project from theirperspectiveIdentify all the relevant problemsGenerate solutionsArticulate and clarify all key issuesMediate between conflictinginterestsBe EffectiveNurture and protect credibilityHave all communication receivedand understood by appropriatepotentially affected interestsReceive and review all theinformation needed to understandthe potentially affected interestsSearch for common ground amongpolarized interests who haveconflicting valuesMediate between conflictinginterests■■■■■A serious congestion problem exists andshould be addressed. Conventional solutionslike adding additional lanes, buildingtransit facilities, or applying short-term orsite-specific TSM strategies may not be sufficient.Travel time reliability in the corridor isdesirable.Given the sponsoring agency’s mission, it isthe right entity to address the situation.The sponsoring agency’s approach and proposedsolution to the problem is reasonable,sensible, responsible, and fair.The sponsoring agency listens to and caresabout local stakeholders.36 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical Issues5.1DesignWhen HOT lanes are implemented at the corridorlevel, design issues are driven by whetheror not existing lanes (HOV or general-purpose)can be converted to HOT use or if newlanes must be constructed. The physical designand construction of the lanes is very similar tothat of any highway improvement. As withgeneral-purpose lanes, the construction ofHOT lanes involves utility coordination andrelocation, the installation of drainage systems,earthwork, paving, the construction of ramps,overpasses and bridges, and adding appropriatesignage and striping. In some cases new lanescan be built within the median of the existinghighway. In others, new right-of-way may beneeded. In either case, modifications to existingstructures, signs, and barriers are likely.As expected, the conversion of an existing general-purposeor HOV lane to HOT lane use isless complicated. The pavement is already inplace, and it is likely that little or no additionalwidening or right-of-way acquisition would benecessary. However, in order to maintain premiumtraffic service levels and discourage tollviolations, HOT lanes generally require accesscontrol.Current HOT lane projects have used traditionalhighway design standards and HOVguidelines maintained by AASHTO, stateDOTs, and local governments. As shown inTable 3, the basic cross-section requirements ofHOT lanes are similar to those of general-purposeand HOV lanes. As with HOV lanes,when adequate right-of-way is available HOTlanes are often placed in the median of anexisting highway. The development of additionallane capacity within existing highwaycorridors inevitably requires extensive retrofittingand it is not likely to be possible toachieve desired standards in all circumstances.When this is the case, tradeoffs need to beassessed on an individual basis.The physical configuration and operation ofHOT lane installations varies greatly and isdriven by travel demand and physical constraints.HOT lanes are generally located in themedian of a new or existing highway. Theymay involve single or double lanes operated ona reversible-flow basis or one or two lanes providingcontinual service in each direction.Typical cross-sections for these typical configurationsare provided in the figures below.Figure 6, 7, and 8 provide representative crosssectionsfor concurrent-flow and reversibleflowHOT lanes. These dimensions are reflectedin guidance found in NCHRP 414, HOVSystems Manual and correspond to currentpractice for many HOV lane treatments nationwide.Figure 6 shows cross-sections for a singleCross Section Element Standard Table 3.Lane WidthShoulder Width (Right and Left)Separation Width (for non-barrier separatedoperation)Sight DistanceSafety considerations12 feet, 3.6 meters10 feet, 3.0 meters preferable2 feet, 0.6 meters minimum (dependent on number of lanes,type of operation, sight distance)4 feet, 1.2 metersStandard stopping sight distance for facility typeCrash attenuation for exposed barrier endsTransition treatments with HOV or general purpose lanesAdequate access opening lengthsHOT Lane Cross-Section StandardsFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT37

Chapter 5 Technical IssuesFigure 6.Median-Based One-Lane Reversible FlowHOT Cross-SectionsFreeway2.7-3.0 m (8-10 ft)ShoulderC L8.5-9.7 m (28-32 ft)3.7 m (12 ft)Reversible Lane2.7-3.0 m (8-10 ft)ShoulderFreewayDesirableC L6.1 m (20 ft)Freeway1.2 m (4 ft*)Shoulder3.7 m (12 ft)Reversible Lane1.2 m (4 ft)ShoulderFreewayReduced* Lateral clearance may be combined to provide a dedicated 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulder on one side or the other,or a 7.3 m (24 ft. envelope may be striped with two 3.7 m (12 ft) travel ways with traffic always operatedto the right of the center stripeFigure 7.Median-Based Two-Lane Reversible FlowHOT Cross-SectionsFreeway3.0 m (10 ft)ShoulderC L13.4 m (44 ft)2 Lanes = 7.3 m (24 ft)Reversible Lanes3.0 m (10 ft)ShoulderFreewayDesirableC L11.0 m (36 ft)Freeway0.6 m(2 ft)2 Lanes = 7.3 m (24 ft)Reversible Lanes3.0 m (10 ft)ShoulderFreewayReduced38 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5 Technical IssuesFigure 8.Median-BasedConcurrent Flow HOTCross-SectionsC L18.9 m (62 ft) ±Freeway1.2 m(4 ft)Buffer*3.7 m (12 ft)per laneHOT Lane(s)4.3 m (14 ft)EnforcementShoulder0.6 m(2 ft)4.3 m (14 ft)EnforcementShoulder3.7 m (12 ft)per laneHOT Lane(s)1.2 m(4 ft)Buffer*FreewayDesirable with Enforcement ShouldersC L16.5 m (54 ft) ±Freeway1.2 m(4 ft)Buffer*3.7 m (12 ft)per laneHOT Lane(s)3.2 m (10 ft)Shoulder0.6 m(2 ft)3.2 m (10 ft)Shoulder3.7 m (12 ft)per laneHOT Lane(s)1.2 m(4 ft)Buffer*FreewayDesirable with Standard ShouldersC L10.4 m (34 ft) ±Freeway0.6 m(2 ft)3.7 m (12 ft)per laneHOT Lane(s)1.8 m(2 ft) (2 ft) (2 ft)3.7 m (12 ft)per laneHOT Lane(s)0.6 m(2 ft)FreewayReduced* Buffer area may include permanently placed pylons or traffic channelizersFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT39

Chapter 5Technical IssuesUseful HOV Resourceslane reversible HOT facility located in themedian of an existing highway, such as theexisting Katy Freeway HOT lane in Houston.Figure 7 provides similar information for atwo-lane, reversible flow, median HOT facilitysimilar to that found on the I-15 in San Diego.Finally, Figure 8 shows typical cross-sectionsfor a four-lane concurrent flow HOT facilitysimilar to the SR 91 in Orange County,California. Regardless of the number of lanesbeing considered, lane widths are typically3.6m (12 feet) wide. Shoulder widths rangefrom a desired width of 3.0 meters (10 feet) to1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulders suitable for useby enforcement officials generally require awidth of 4.3 meters, or 14 feet.The design of most HOT lane projects is dominatedby the issues of access to the HOT laneGiven the extremely close overlap between the physical design of HOTand HOV lanes, those seeking detailed information on the physical designof HOT lanes are directed to take advantage of the wealth of existinginformation on HOV design.There are several excellent resources providing detailed information on thedesign of managed lanes. Two of these are described below. Others arecited in Appendix X of this report.HOV Systems Manual, National Cooperative Highway Research Program(NCHRP) Report 414, Transportation Research Board, National ResearchCouncil, National Academy Press: Washington, D.C. 1998.Chapter 6 of the NCHRP report addresses design issues for managed lanesbuilt within existing highways and in separate rights of way. The manualdiscusses the design features of barrier separated, concurrent flow, and contraflowmanaged lanes, as well as multiple access treatment. Sample crosssections,signing and pavements markings are presented.Fuhs, Charles A., High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities: A planning, Design,and Operation Manual, New York: Parsons Brinckerhoff, December 1990.Also an industry standard, the Fuhs manual is organized in three main sectionsparalleling the decision making process for implementing managedlanes: planning, operation, and design. Among other areas, the design sectionprovides comprehensive information on cross-section requirements forvarious configurations, enforcement, signing and pavement markings.and the physical separation of the HOT lanefrom general-purpose lanes. The HOT lanefacilities currently in operation in the UnitedStates utilize either concrete barrier or pylonseparation and have single entry and exitpoints. Tolls are collected electronically at theaccess point. However, studies have beenundertaken identifying ways to provide additionalaccess points in intermediate locations.As shown in Figure 9, this would be accomplishedusing slip ramps equipped with tagreaders located on gantries downstream of theaccess points. A variety of different buffer andweaving lane configurations would be possible.Figure 10 illustrates how intermediate accesscan be provided for a concurrent-flow HOTlane with ability to provide occupancy enforcementin the vicinity of each electronic tagreader site.The following sections focus on these aspectsof HOT lane projects, as they present issuesthat are not likely to arise during the design ongeneral-purpose highway lanes. Discussions ofspecialized signage and toll plaza requirementsare also provided.5.1.1SeparationAs discussed above, HOT lanes can be providedin a variety of configurations. However, inall cases they must be separated from the general-purposelanes. As with HOV lanes, thiscan be accomplished by using a painted stripeor buffer zone, or a physical barrier. Physicalbarriers are preferred for permanent HOT laneinstallations as they provide better access controland are more effective at reducing violationsand maintaining premium traffic service.Since there are often high speed differentialsbetween the general-purpose lanes and HOTlanes, physical barriers also help maintain safetyby preventing potential violators from crossingthe buffer into the HOT lanes and disruptingthe traffic flows.40 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5 Technical IssuesApprox. 610 m (2000 ft) Varies305 m (1000 ft)Figure 9.Alternative HOT LaneSlip RampConfigurationsMixed-Flow LanesMedian BarrierShoulderStandard EntranceWeave LaneStandard ExitShoulderMedianBarrierMedian BarrierHOT LaneBuffersMedianBarrierTag ReaderBarrier-Separated OptionC LC LApprox. 1220 m (4000 ft) Varies305 m (1000 ft)Mixed-Flow LanesNarrow orWide Buffer80:1 MinWide BufferStd. EntranceWeave LaneStandard ExitWide Buffer80:1 MinShoulderHOT LaneShoulderTag ReaderNarrow Buffer-Separated OptionMedian BarrierNarrow Buffer1.2 m (4 ft) MaxBufferTag Reader20:1305 m (1000 ft)Mixed-Flow LanesHOT Lane20:1Reduced Narrow Buffer-Separated Option (No Weave Lane)ShoulderC LMedian BarrierFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT41

Chapter 5 Technical IssuesFigure 10.HOT Lane Access,Electronic TollCollection, andEnforcement AreasVehicle with decalon windshieldEnforcement area locateddownstream of toll reader(Police can visually inspectdecales from a stationaryor roving position)BufferMixed flow lanesSafety barrierPylons42 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical IssuesTubular MarkersTubular markers, pylons, or stanchions provideanother separation option for HOT lanes.They consist of a series of painted lightweightplastic tubes approximately three feet in heightplaced at regular intervals. Because they risevertically out of the pavement, they perform agreater psychological function than stripingalone, but do not provide the physical protectionof a continuous barrier. One of their primaryadvantages is that they require a narrowerswath of right-of-way than continuous barriersand, therefore, are less expensive to install.Tubular markers do not entirely eliminate crossover traffic, but they reduce violations to anacceptable level. One primary advantage to themarkers is that they do not add to right-of-wayrequirements. They also allow emergency andmaintenance vehicles to drive over them totake advantage of the higher travel speeds inthe HOT lane. However, the cost of regular(daily) maintenance must be weighted againstthose of other separation methods.Based on the experience of HOV programs inCalifornia, 20-foot spacing between pylons isrecommended. 11 In addition, it is also recommendedthat a minimum 18-inch striped bufferzone be provided on each side of the pylon.This approach has been used on the SR 91Express Lanes, where a double yellow line separatesthe outer general- purpose lane from thepylons and inner yellow line and outer whiteline are used on the HOT lane side of themarkers (Figure 11). 12There are three tubular marker systems currentlyused by DOTs around the United States:11High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities: A Planning,Operation, and Design Manual, ParsonsBrinckerhoff, 199012This is contrary to MUTCD striping requirements,which stipulate that yellow stripes shouldbe used to separate flows in opposing directionsand white stripes to separate those in the samedirection.■■■individual plastic pylons attached to theroadway with adhesive;pylons affixed to a mountable plasticraised curb; andelectronically operated pylons that retractinto the ground.Mountable Curb MarkersMountable curb markers feature a 10- to 12-inch-wide, four-inch-high curb that supportsvertical round or flat markers with reflectivesheeting. The markers themselves are reboundableand bounce back into place if they havebeen hit. The markers do not damage vehiclescrossing them, but do make a loud bangingnoise. The mountable curb markers aredesigned to enable emergency vehicle accessand to stand up under winter conditions.Although mountable curb markers are used bymany highway departments to maintain trafficaround construction sites, they have not beenwidely tested in high speed lane separationsituations.Retractable MarkersIn addition, automatically retractable markersystems are available, such as found on the I-5in San Clemente, California and on the NewYork Thruway near Albany. The retractablepylons utilize flexible channelizing postshoused in self-contained cartridges recessed inthe roadway and can be raised or lowered froma remote location as needed. One advantage ofFigure 11.Tubular markers on SR 91FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT43

Chapter 5Technical IssuesFigure 12.Concrete barrier onI-394 reversible lanes,Minneapolisthe retractable technology is that the pylonscould be lowered during snow removal operationsor to provide access for emergency vehicles.However, at a cost of $25,000 for eightunits they are expensive. They also requireminor excavation at each post and the installationof electrical wiring beneath the roadway.Maintenance IssuesThere are maintenance issues associated withall types of pylons. Experience shows that thedisplacement rate for traditional pylons isroughly 10 percent every 60 to 90 days, whichmeans that all units would need to be replacedevery year. Although generally durable, theadhesive-mounted plastic pylons can only behit a certain number of times before they ceaseto bounce back up. They can also be hit withsuch force that the units dislodge from thepavement, pulling out pieces of asphalt withthem. The New York Thruway Authority hasused pre-drilled holes in the pavement toattach pylons in an effort to prevent pavementdamage, but found the loss ratio to be thesame as for the glued units.Similarly, the mountable curb pylons are oftendamaged on impact, but their replacement rateis 10 to 15 percent per year, which is less thanfor adhesive-mounted pylons. Because themountable curb pylons have a much bettersuccess rate in this area, there would be fewerreplacement and maintenance concerns. Forboth types, the plastic pylons tend to turnblack in color from the tires of vehicles thatstrike them. The cost of the traditional pylonsis approximately $60 per unit. Therefore,depending on spacing and frequency ofreplacement, both the capital and maintenancecosts are high for tubular barriers. Moreover,retractable pylons require considerable maintenanceto remove debris and provide for theiroperability. As with other systems they requirereplacement after a number of hits at a slightlygreater cost (due to their design).Snow removal is also an issue in many locationsand presents two problems when pylons areused. As the snow is plowed, it is pushed intothe adjacent lane because of the lack of a physicalbarrier. This means that the adjacent lane isnot properly cleared. Also, snow removalequipment often damages pylons, either byplowing snow onto the posts or by hitting them.Continuous BarriersContinuous concrete barriers, such as Jerseybarriers or movable barrier systems, are a morepermanent and durable type of barrier andhave been used for separation on a number ofmanaged lane facilities around the country(Figure 12). They are also preferable fromenforcement and traffic service perspectives asthey prevent unauthorized vehicles from enteringthe managed lanes. In addition, they provideenhanced safety and are essential if reversibleflow operations are being contemplated.On the negative side, the presence of continuousbarriers is likely to increase response timefor emergency vehicles and may hinder emergencyresponse operations in the HOT lane.Concrete barriers can also complicate snowremoval, unless sufficient storage reservoirs areprovided in the shoulder. Exposed barrier endsat access points should also be buffered to protectmotorists.44 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical IssuesThe installation of concrete barriers usuallyrequires roadway modifications, as ampleshoulders are needed. Based on AASHTOstandards, a minimum four-foot shoulder isrequired between the HOT lane and the barrier,while a 10 foot shoulder is preferredbetween the general-purpose lane and the barrier.13 Including the barrier itself, a total widthof 18 feet (12’ lane width + 4’ shoulder + 2’barrier) is recommended between a barrier-separatedHOT lane and the adjacent general-purposelanes. Figure 12 shows the concrete barriersseparating HOT lanes on I-394 inMinnesota, together with the associated stripingand shoulders. Because of their right-ofwayrequirements, continuous concrete barriersare more costly to build than other separationoptions. However, maintenance costs are lowin comparison.5.1.2AccessAccess to a HOT lane facility, and the extent towhich it is controlled, is a fundamental issue indesigning and operating any HOT lane project.There are important cost, operational, safetyand enforcement trade offs associated withthe different levels of access control. Asdescribed below, there are two generalapproaches to providing access to managedlanes: restricted at-grade access, and grade-separatedaccess.Restricted At-grade AccessRestricted at-grade access to either striped orbarrier separated HOT lanes is provided by slipramps leading to openings in the barriers orstripes. The slip ramps provide acceleration anddeceleration space for vehicles moving in orout of the HOT lanes which can be usedtogether with barrier openings to provideacceleration/deceleration lanes in the mergearea. Slip ramps, or some variation thereof, currentlyprovide access to many HOV managedlane and general highway facilities around the13AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and Streets (Chapter VIII, Freeways)United States, such as the HOV lanes in LosAngeles and Orange County, California, shownin Figures 13 and 14. I-5 provides an HOVlane in each direction andrestricts access across a fourfootbuffer area. The I-405provides one HOV lane ineach direction and access issimilarly limited to breaks inthat buffer.Acceleration/decelerationlanes are provided in theexample in Figure 14. Thelocations of the barrieropenings and slip rampsneeds to be closely coordinatedwith highway entranceand exit ramps and allowadequate room for motoriststo complete weaving movementswhen movingbetween the general-purposeand HOT lanes and anentrance or exit ramp.Caltrans recommends a buffer/barrier openingof at least 1300 feet, and a weaving distance ofat least 1,000 feet per lane between theupstream and downstream ramps and theopening. 14 For planning purposes a bufferopening of 1500 feet with a weaving distanceFigure 13.I-15 HOV lanes with slipramp, Orange County,CaliforniaFigure 14.I-405 slip ramp and atgradeaccess, OrangeCounty, CaliforniaFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT45

Chapter 5Technical IssuesFigure 15.Elevated HOV drop rampof 1000’ per lane between the ramps andopening may be used. When determining thelocations of slip ramps, local topography, linesof sight, and operating characteristics of adjacentlanes need to be taken into consideration.Restricted at-grade access to a striped or barrier-separatedHOT lane is a cost effectiveapproach to providing controlled access to theHOT lane facility. Together, slip ramps andbarrier/striping openings control access andegress to and from the managed lane, minimizetraffic service impacts in the managedlane, and control weaving movements on theparallel highway. While they limit the need forexpensive ramp structures, slip ramps requireadditional pavement area, and can requiremodifications to existing bridges and signstructures. Because access is limited to certainlocations upstream and downstream of interchangeramps, there is the potential for bottlenecksto form near access points. As a result, inareas of heavy weaving between the HOT lanesand interchange ramps, where multi-lane HOTtreatments are envisioned, grade-separatedaccess may be desirable based on traffic engineeringanalysis of the demand and roadwaygeometric.Grade-Separated AccessConventional wisdom in highway engineeringholds that the greatest efficiency, safety, andcapacity are achieved when conflicting movementsare grade separated. Grade-separatedaccess for HOT lanes greatly reduces weavingand merging movements for vehicles enteringor exiting a facility. In addition, the ramps provideacceleration and deceleration areas, whichallow high-speed merges and diverges. Gradeseparatedoptions include median drop rampsfrom overpasses or direct freeway-to-freewayconnections, such as those shown in Figures 15and 16. Layouts for these examples and otherscan be found in the aforementioned HOVguides.Figure 16.Grade separated HOV tohighway flyover ramps14HOV Guidelines for Planning, Design, andOperations, Caltrans, July 1991.Access and egress to and from HOT lanesshould be designed to minimize conflicts withmainline general-purpose traffic. As with otherhighway facilities, HOT access and egressramps should meet AASHTO design standards.5.1.3SignageAccurate, informative signs are essential inexplaining operational procedures of HOT lanefacilities and ensuring safe access and egressfrom the managed lanes. HOT lane signsshould provide motorists with information on:46 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical Issues■■■■■■access and egress locations;distances to ramps;occupancy requirements;operating hours;cost; andenforcement issues.In addition, motorists need to be given adequatetime to decide whether or not to use theHOT facility, and then be able to access thefacility safely. This requires that the properinformation be provided so that motorists areable to make informed, real-time decisionswhether or not to use the facility.Tolling SignageHOT lane signage systems must also providemotorists with information on toll levels. Goodsignage is particularly important when variabletolls are involved. These can involve eithertime-of-day tolls or a dynamic pricing systemthat changes price according to the level ofcongestion in the parallel general-purpose lanesand the availability of excess capacity on themanaged lane(s).When this is the case, variable message signs(VMS) are the best way to provide motoristsFigure 17.SR 91 signageGeneral information, such as the address andtelephone number of the customer service centerand website should also be conveyed(Figure 17).Signage for HOT lanes should generally adhereto the standards prescribed for HOV facilitiesin the Federal Manual on Uniform TrafficControl Devices (MUTCD) Section 2B-49and 50.Access and Egress SignageGood signage is critical in directing motoriststo access and egress locations on barrier-separatedfacilities. In order to access interchanges,the corresponding buffer opening must beplaced several thousand feet upstream of theexit ramp. Drivers need to be directed to thebuffer openings providing access to theirdesired interchange. Figure 18 illustrates thesequence of signs that lead a HOT lane driverfrom the facility to a general-purpose lane exit.In this particular case, the driver would mergeon to the general-purpose lanes at an openingtwo miles upstream of the Montrose Roadinterchange. The driver would then mergetowards the desired exit ramp, following signson the general-purpose lane located approximatelyone mile north of the Montrose Roadexit ramps. The locations of the appropriatebuffer openings for each interchange must becommunicated clearly to HOT lane users.with accurate and current information. Variablemessage signs can also provide motorists withother information, such as general travel conditions,and enforcement polities. 15 When variableor dynamic pricing is used, at least oneand preferably two, variable message signsshould be placed before all entrance points tothe HOT lane in order to provide drivers withthe basic information they need in order todetermine whether or not they will use theHOT lane. These signs operate in parallel andare usually controlled from an operations or15HOT lane operators have contemplated displayinganticipated travel times savings together withtoll levels in order to help motorists make the decisionwhether or not to use the HOT lane, but havegenerally decided against this, given that the actualtime savings experienced by motorists could differ.Figure 18.Buffer location signingFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT47

Chapter 5Technical IssuesFigure 19.I-15 variable message signFigure 20.I-15 police cartraffic control center.Variable message signs arecurrently used on the SR91 Express Lanes and onthe on I-15 in San Diego(Figure 19).5.1.4Enforcement AreasHOT facilities should alsoinclude locations fromwhich enforcement agenciescan monitor traffic andidentify any unauthorizedvehicles. In order to see occupants properlyduring the hours of darkness or inclementweather, lighting is required at the observationpoints for officers. The enforcement areasshould be large enough to accommodate theneed to accelerate to the speed limit beforeentering traffic to stop a violator. They shouldbe wide enough to accommodate safe enforcementaction and may be located near tollingpoints, allowing officers to monitor traffic as itenters the facility and provide a visual deterrentto would be offenders (Figure 20). Barrier-separatedfacilities will require less enforcementpresence than would be required for a roadwaythat is not physically separated.The primary reason that facilities for on siteenforcement are recommended near the accesspoints is that current technologies—both videoand thermal—cannot accurately discern thenumber of occupants in large numbers of vehiclestraveling at highway speeds. Moreover, thepresence of an officer is a useful deterrent formisuse by those who want to abuse the system.Enforcement issues are addressed in furtherdetail in Section 6.3.5.2TechnologyHOT lanes involve significant technology componentsthat often far exceed those of generalpurposehighway expansions. They require fullyautomated electronic toll collection (ETC) systemsand some also include real-time trafficsurveillance and variably priced electronic tollcollection systems. These sophisticated systemsallow tolls to be collected in an efficient matter,enable real-time toll pricing, maintain premiumtravel conditions on the HOT lanes, andcommunicate cost and travel information tomotorists.The following sections provide information onthe various technical systems needed for HOTlane projects.5.2.1Electronic Toll CollectionEach of the three operating HOT lane facilitiesin the United States and over 250 other tolledfacilities across the country utilize electronictoll collection (ETC). ETC enables motoriststo pay tolls without cash transactions at a tollboothand enter and exit toll facilities at normalhighway speeds.ETC systems rely on a number of individualcomponents each of which are linked to a lanecontroller (a micro processor) that controls andcoordinates their activities. The following componentsare needed.48 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical IssuesThe Lane ControllerThe lane controller coordinates the activities ofall equipment in a single lane and generates thetransactions assigned to individual customers.The lane controller also stores a list of validtags so it can validate the information from theAVI. A larger plaza (local) computer collectstransaction information from the lane controllersat each toll collection point and thencommunicates it to an Agency Central HostComputer. The latter collects and consolidatesinformation from all toll collection points inthe system, transmits the list of valid tags toeach lane controller for AVI validation, andprepares audit reports from each tolling point.Generally there is one lane controller for eachtravel lane. These, in turn, are linked with acentral host computer. Depending on the datatransmission requirements, linkages are generallyprovided by leased T-1 telephone lines or afiber optic system. The lane controller is capableof receiving messages and control signals,transmitting messages and generating andsending appropriate control signals to effectivelyinterface with a central computer and thelane subsystems.Automatic Vehicle Identification SystemsAutomatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) technologyfeatures a radio frequency device calleda transponder, located in the vehicle that transmitsa unique identity to an antenna located ona gantry above each lane to be tolled. Theantenna is linked by coaxial cable to a readerlocated in an adjacent roadside cabinet. Thereader interprets the information received fromthe transponder devices and sends it to the lanecontroller, which determines if the vehicle iscarrying a valid transponder, verifies the vehicleclassification, and generates the appropriate tolltransaction.Automatic Vehicle Classification SystemsAutomatic Vehicle Classification (AVC) sensorsare located at the tolling point and verify thevehicle’s classification so that the proper tollcan be charged. Classification is typically basedon the vehicle’s profile and number of axles. Ifthere is a discrepancy between the observedclassification and that recorded on thetransponder, then the matter is sorted outaccording to established protocols, or sent to aviolations processing center for further action.AVC systems can include any or all of the followingcomponents:The lane controller must contain sufficientmemory to store the toll tables, staff ID informationand all the AVI/ETC lists of valid andinvalid transponders sent to the lane from thecentral computer. The lane controller also performsequipment status checks as part of thenormal processing of transactions, with alarmfailures reported to the operator.In the event of a communications failure withthe central computer, the lane controllershould generally be capable of storing transactiondata for a minimum of thirty days. Thelane controller should also be able to operatein a stand-alone mode for the same period oftime.■■Detector loops and loop detector amplifiersare imbedded in the pavement andused to detect and classify the type of vehiclespassing over them. The loops are linkedto the lane controller and can be used individuallyto count traffic, to trigger the violationenforcement cameras or in tandem tomeasure vehicle speeds.Infrared light curtains are installed in pairsto sense the separation between two vehiclespassing through a lane, as well as heightdepending on the number of beamsdeployed. The information passed on to thelane controller is used in conjunction withthe loop detectors to support the correctgrouping of axles and to identify largetrucks or vehicles pulling trailers. Whenused in conjunction with radar, a vehiclecan be tracked through the toll transaction,FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT49

Chapter 5Technical IssuesDetection Equipment OptionsTypically, the antennas are mounted overhead on a sign gantry, existingoverpass (bridges), or on dedicated gantries. On some variable pricingfacilities, such as the 407 in Toronto, SR 91 in Orange County, California,and I-15 in San Diego, overhead gantries support the AVI antennas at variousintervals along the roadway.Alternatively, side-mounted antennas are available but not commonly usedfor tolling purpose. One advantage to side mounted antennas is that theyare easier to access for maintenance or repair than overhead or in-pavementdetectors. The single biggest disadvantage is that side-mounted antennasare prone to cross reads i.e. reading tags in vehicles that may be in adjacentgeneral-purpose lanes.In-pavement detectors have been used in some areas, most commonly inwarm climates. This approach is often problematic in that it can requirecomparatively long lane closures during installation and repair. Inpavementdetectors also require that transponder tags be mounted belowvehicles or on the front license plate. This type of installation is difficult forvehicle owners and could force them to seek professional assistance. Thislevel of inconvenience is not prudent if market penetration is sought. Inaddition, with plate mounted transponders are more likely to be stolen ordamaged, and they cannot be easily transferred from one vehicle toanother.Given these placement factors, it is recommended that detection equipmentbe placed overhead and, where feasible, be mounted on existingstructures. However, the structure must be substantial enough to exhibitminimal movement under design wind loads. This requirement is due tothe sensitivity of VES cameras, lighting and the AVI antenna. A typicalinstallation for single lane HOT would require two (2) antennas (one overthe 10-12' lane and another over the shoulder (if greater than 4' inwidth), and two (2) VES cameras and high intensity lights (a set)—withone set for rear plate capture and another for front plate coverage.■its speed registered and a profile developedin concert with an infrared curtain or overhead/signscanner/separator.Treadles are pressure sensitive devicesinserted in the pavement designed for directionalcounting of vehicle axles passing overthem. Each treadle operates with a treadleinterface board mounted inside the lanecontroller. The treadle consists of twopieces, a frame and a body with removablebars or stripes (sensors). These sensors areused as inputs to the lane controller via the■input board to provide information on axlecount and vehicle direction of travel,depending on the order in which the stripesare hit.Vehicle separators/profilers can be locatedon a gantry or at the side of a lane. Theyperform functions similar to the light curtains.The class of vehicles is determinedbased on the profile of the passing vehicle.Video Enforcement SystemsVideo enforcement systems are used to capturerear and/or front images of all vehicles that donot carry a valid transponder, as well as thosewith an observed discrepancy between the classificationof tag and the vehicle in which it islocated. Video enforcement equipmentincludes a controller computer, an interface tothe lane controller, camera(s) mounted on thegantry above each lane, and high intensitylighting. High-resolution cameras with automaticaperture settings and field of view areused to capture images of the rear and/orfront of the vehicle.ETC IssuesThere are variations on typical ETC systemconfigurations. In New York and New Jersey,for example, the recently implementedRegional Consortium system on the NewJersey Turnpike, utilizes a Type 2 Read/WriteTag that stores toll information. Upon enteringthe Turnpike, data on the point of entry andtime is written to the tag. The system reads thetag upon exiting and computes and deductsthe toll from the customer’s account.As electronic toll collection and other intelligenttransportation technologies continue toemerge, new technologies may come to play arole in the enforcement of variable pricing inthe future. However, until technologies such asthermal or video imaging are refined and candetermine vehicle occupancies accurately, ETCwill remain the most effective and accuratemeans of collecting tolls, and visual enforcementwill be the most fool proof.50 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical IssuesSystem integration is a complicated process.Most agencies hire specialists either to integratethe technology into their existing toll environmentor develop a new toll system.5.2.2ITS TechnologyFree flow travel and more reliable travel timesare essential to the success of HOT lane projects.HOT lanes utilize ITS technologies tomonitor travel conditions, and communicateinformation to motorists. In certain cases travelconditions are also used to establish real-timevariably priced tolls. The following ITS componentsare likely to be needed for most HOTlane applications:Variable Message Sign (VMS)The VMS can be located on the gantry at thepay point to provide direction to patrons orupstream of the HOT lane access points toconvey the variable toll rate, operating regulations,and information on travel conditions.The VMS includes the controller and associatedequipment, sign attachment hardware andcontrol cabling from the lane controller to thesign.Lane Use Signal (LUS)The LUS would become necessary on a facilityif more than one lane is used for its operationthereby properly identifying the appropriatelane to use for various hours of the day or duringpeak periods. One LUS would be locatedabove each lane attached to the gantry at thepayment location. Each LUS has a one-way,one-section head. The signal is capable of displayingtwo messages, a red ”X” and a greendown arrow. The signal consists of a data interfaceto the lane controller.Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) SystemA CCTV video monitoring and security systemcan provide continuous monitoring of trafficoperation along the length of a facility. In addition,it can be used to monitor areas wheremoney and/or tags are handled, as well asbuilding entry doors and storage areas. Videoand loop detectors placed along the roadwaycan be used to monitor corridor-wide operations,identify incidents, dispatch a response team,and monitor the incident through recovery.Traffic Volume and Speed MonitoringSubsystemThis subsystem was discussed above as part ofthe use of loop, radar or video detectors in theVehicle Classification System and/or CCTVsections.Other ITS tools such as overhead and side firingradar/microwave, speed/volume detectorssuch as Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor andtravel advisory radio can also play an importantrole in managing the operation of variablypriced HOT facilities.Since free flow travel and reliable travel timesare essential to the success of HOT lane projects,ITS technologies allow HOT lane operatorsto quickly identify, respond and monitorincident recovery; providing variable messageson the road for changing conditions; and usingadvisory radio to inform drivers about changingconditions.5.3Travel Demand Forecasting, Pricing,and FinancingIn any feasibility assessment of a proposedHOT facility, travel demand forecasts, possiblepricing structures, and financing strategies allplay a role and are closely interrelated. Thissection discusses how these processes overlapand highlights those aspects that are unique toHOT lanes.HOT lane initiatives share some aspects ofboth toll road and HOV lane initiatives. Asmanaged lanes, they provide priority treatmentfor high-occupancy vehicles and, as tolled facilities,they provide premium service for payingmotorists. One of the unique aspects of HOTlane planning is that demand levels for theFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT51

Chapter 5Technical IssuesDeciding to use a HOT lanemanaged lanes must be forecasted for bothHOV and SOV buy-in vehicles under a varietyof pricing and occupancy requirement regimens.This exercise serves a dual purpose.■■First, it allows different pricing and vehicleoccupancy structures to be tested in orderto derive the combination of pricing andoccupancy requirements that maximizestransportation benefits for all motorists travelingin the HOT lane corridor.Second, it involves translating the projectedvehicle flows and toll levels into anticipatedrevenue streams that, in turn, facilitate theevaluation of various financing approaches.While planning for other kinds of transportationimprovements may use these technicalanalyses independently, in planning for andassessing HOT lane proposals, the relationshipbetween the cost of access to the HOT facilityThe decision whether or not to use a HOT lane is based largely on thevalue of time. The literature related to the value of travel time is extensive,and there are many “rules of thumb” that have evolved from this literature.The most common approach is to value travel time at some percentageof area-specific average wage rates. Work trips may be valued at closeto the full rate, while off-peak non-work trips are valued at less.The accuracy of this is difficult to validate. Moreover, the value of any individual’stime will vary by that person’s income (higher income individualswill “value” time more highly than low income travelers), and the averagewage rate fails to reflect this. In addition, the value of time for specificindividuals may change depending on the situation at hand — whetherone is late for a commitment or making a discretionary trip. Similarly,some motorists may choose the HOT lane even if the time savings fallshort of the out-of-pocket cost because the HOT travel time is predictable,while that associated with the free alternative is not. For example, experienceon the SR 91 in Orange County has shown that lower income wageearners whose job security requires timely arrival at work may be likely toutilize the HOT lane rather than risk delays on the general-purpose lanesthat could lead to tardiness affecting their job security.The best approach for valuing HOT lane travel time savings is throughstated preference surveys.and its utilization levels is key. HOT lane userfees may vary in real time based on travel congestionin the parallel general-purpose lanes.Determining the elasticity of demand for theHOT lane involves analysis of:■■■■■trip purpose;driver income;congestion levels;travel time savings; andthe availability of alternative travel routes.In most locations, there is limited empiricaldata that can be used to assess these relationships,forcing modelers to utilize behavioraland attitudinal surveys, as well as historic datafrom existing HOT lane facilities, such as theSR 91 and I-15.5.3.1Travel Demand Forecasting for HOT LaneProjectsTravel demand models are mathematical toolsthat are used to forecast roadway and transittravel based on projected population levels,land use trends and expected roadway andtransit characteristics such as cost and traveltime. Based on a traditional four-step model,the process involves the creation of traveldemand or “trip tables” which identify thedemand for mobility between different originand destination pairs and then an assignmentmodel which distributes those trips on to thetravel network by mode based on the location,capacity and travel characteristics of its differentcomponents. Models vary in their size andcomplexity. Complex multi-modal modelsoften involve a collection of sub-models eachaddressing specific modes or types of trips.Travel demand models can be adapted to assessHOT lane projects with toll strategies that varywith the time of day and vehicle occupancy.Estimating traffic demand for a HOT lanefacility must address both the general demandfor mobility as well as the willingness ofmotorists to pay for improved travel conditions.52 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical IssuesIn addition, HOT lanes are often implementedin concert with, or in addition to, HOV facilities.If this is the case HOV behavior must alsobe considered when preparing HOT traveldemand forecasts. Demand for an HOV facility—eitherinvolving the introduction of newlane(s) on an existing facility, or the conversionof an existing general-purpose lane(s)—is typicallyestimated based upon the time savings thefacility would afford. There are a number ofreadily available sketch planning tools, such asFHWA’s HOV Demand Estimation Model,that are used to prepare conceptual estimatesfor HOV facilities. These models, discussedfurther in Section 5.4.2, can also be enhancedto assess the effects of the costs and travel timesavings issues associated with potential HOTlane projects.At a minimum, demand assessments must considerthe HOT lane travel time differential toestimate the value of time savings afforded bythe HOT lane, as it is likely that motorists willchose the HOT lane if the time savings valueexceeds the out-of-pocket cost required toachieve the savings.The array of factors affectingtravel demand for HOT lanes is providedbelow in Table 4.Behavioral SurveysGiven the limited experience with HOT lanesin most locations, additional stated and/orrevealed preference survey research may berequired to refine model assumptions, particularlythose related to value of time, toll elasticitiesof demand, and cost trade-off decisions—all of which affect mode and route choices.When demand estimation methods at a “sketchplanning” level are employed, it may still beadvisable to conduct survey market researchthrough mail-back surveys, intercept and interviewtechniques, focus groups, etc. to learnmore about the travel patterns, demographics,willingness to pay, and other decision trade-offfactors of travelers. “Stated preference” surveyquestions posing particular choices with variousCategoriesPrice of HOT laneserviceCost ofAlternative“Free”ServiceTravelCharacteristicsUserCharacteristicsDemand FactorsToll or out-of-pocket costPricing structure as a function of time of day, vehicle occupancy,prevailing traffic levels on alternative facilities, etc.—affects usagedecisions including mode choice / carpooling attractivenessHOT lane travel time cost (value of time _ travel time, summedacross vehicle occupants)HOT lane route vehicle operating cost perceived by user“Membership cost”—the out of pocket, inconvenience, and/oropportunity cost of making the user eligible to use the facility(includes AVI tags for electronic tolling, account deposit, setupfees, etc.)Expected congestion time cost of using a parallel or alternate “free” route as perceived by the user (value of time _ traveltime, summed across vehicle occupants)Additional time cost associated with the congestion-relateduncertainty of using a parallel free facility (inconvenience andfrustration arising from the variation between the expected traveltime before use and the actual “true” travel time after use)Free route vehicle operating cost perceived by userTrip purpose—affects value of time, and thus willingness to payout of pocket costsVehicle occupancy—affects willingness to pay via the net timesavings value for the vehicle, and may impact the HOT lane pricefor the vehicleTrip frequency—may affect willingness to buy into the HOT laneconcept (obtain an account and AVI equipment or becoming aHOT lane “member”)Risk profile of users (risk averse / neutral / loving)—relates towillingness to pay for travel time reliabilityDisposable income and other demographic user characteristics—affects value of time and risk aversion in both predictable andunpredictable waysout-of-pocket and time costs associated withthem can help clarify the conditions for whichvarious groups of travelers would choose to usethe HOT lane facility, including estimating varioustoll elasticities of demand. Ultimately theobjective is to determine the market share ofexisting and potential travel that could be capturedunder various HOT lane pricingschemes.Regardless of whether sophisticated modelingmethods or sketch planning techniques areused, it is not possible to model the full variationof behavior encountered among travelers,particularly with the many elements of uncertaintythat exist, and incomplete information atTable 4.HOT Lane DemandFactorsFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT53

Chapter 5Technical IssuesTable 5.Sample HOT DemandLevelsAlternativeHOT2+ $0.10/mileHOT3+ $0.10/mileHOT2+ $0.20/milethe time travel decisions are made. This suggeststhat any HOT lane demand forecastsshould be presented as a range of volumes overa specified time interval (i.e., per peak hour,peak period, weekday, year) rather thanabsolute volumes.5.3.2HOT Lane Pricing and Travel DemandAs with any user fee-based transportation system,toll rates have a direct effect on thedemand for a HOT lane facility. The preciseeffect of pricing strategies differs from settingto setting and is governed by issues such as trippurpose, income levels, and congestion levelson parallel routes. An effective pricing strategyis used in concert with vehicle-occupancyrequirements for HOVs to manage demand onthe HOT lanes to ensure that adequate residualcapacity is retained in order to maintainpremium travel conditions on the managedlanes. This is achieved by charging a premiumfor utilizing the HOT lanes during peakdemand periods—determined either by timeof-day,as with the SR 91, or, as with the I-15,on a real-time basis based on congestion levelson the parallel lanes.Pricing hierarchies can be calibrated once facilitiesbecome operational in order to achieve thedesired result. However, when projects are stillin the planning stage these effects can only bemodeled. The studies associated with the StateRoute 14 in Los Angeles County, Californiaillustrate the dynamics involved in differentpricing and operating scenarios. 16 The followingpricing and operational strategies wereconsidered:Vehicular Demand on SR-14 HOT Lanes in the AM PeakPeriod between Escondido Canyon Road and CrownValley Road2233 (1179 toll, 1054 free)2101 (1730 toll, 372 free)1731 (520 toll, 1211 free)■■■HOT2+ $0.10/mile—restricting free accessto HOV-2 vehicles and charging all others$0.10 per mile to use the HOT lane;HOT3+ $0.10/mile—restricting free accessto HOV-3 vehicles and charging all others$0.10 per mile to use the HOT lane; andHOT2+ $0.20/mile—restricting free accessto HOV-2 vehicles and charging all others$0.20 per mile to use the HOT lane.Table 5 shows how the different scenariosaffected the demand in the peak direction atone particular location.The SR 14 study showed that with a two-personHOV occupancy requirement there was afairly even split between tolled vehicles and freevehicles on the HOT lanes. When the occupancyrestriction was increased to HOV3, therewas a drop in the overall demand for the HOTlane of about 10 percent, and a markedincrease in the number of tolled vehicles usingthe facility, as fewer vehicles were eligible touse the HOT lane at no cost. When the occupancyrestriction was kept at HOV2 and theSOV toll was increased to $0.20, there was a22 percent decrease in the overall demand forthe HOT lane due to a marked decrease in thenumber of tolled vehicles, as the cost of thetrip exceeded the expected benefit for many ofthe SOV drivers.Although they differed somewhat, the resultsof the SR 14 model showed similar demandtrends at other locations along the corridor.This level of variance suggests that at the planningstage forecasts should include sensitivityanalysis to show the likely range in revenue andutilization figures in order for planners to makeprudent assumptions, particularly when financingrelies on projected revenues and the potentialprofitability of the HOT lanes.16State Route 14 Corridor ImprovementAlternatives Study, SCAG/Parsons Brinckerhoff,October 2000.54 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical Issues5.3.3A Sketch Planning Methodology forEstimating HOT Lane RevenueThis section provides a sketch planningmethodology which can be useful in preparingrevenue forecasts that typically play a criticalrole in initial feasibility assessments of HOTlanes and other surface transportation investments.This approach is less rigorous than afull-fledged “investment-grade” revenue forecastbut can still provide helpful information todecision makers. Figure 21 provides a conceptualsketch planning methodology to estimateHOT lane traffic and revenues which may beadapted by agencies or their consultants.The sketch planning model incorporates varioussituations that may face the analyst, forexample:■■■A completely new HOT lane facility is to beconstructed adjacent to existing generalpurposelanes;An existing HOV lane is to be converted toa HOT lane; andA new HOV lane is to be constructed, butwith the intent of a possible conversion toHOT use at a later point if traffic conditionswarrant.The methodology presented in Figure 21 mirrorsthe actual operation of a HOT lane andthe pricing regime that might be in place. First,peak traffic on the general-purpose lane ismeasured, and LOS determined. Utilizing thisinformation, peak period congestion delays canbe estimated, and the cost of those delaysquantified based on hourly values of traveltime. Then, based on the available capacity inthe HOV lane (after “free” HOV vehicles areaccounted for), SOV users are “shifted” to theHOT lane, just up to the point where free flowconditions can be maintained in the HOT lane.The HOT lane toll is modeled based on thedegree of congestion in the general-purposelane, and the cost of that congestion to SOVusers. HOT lane revenues are then estimatedafter accounting for market penetration of electronictoll collection accounts.In a more complex, but perhaps more realisticversion of this, HOT lane tolls are repeatedlyset to reflect the income distribution of SOVdrivers in the general-purpose lane. Those SOVusers at the top of the income distribution—who place the highest value on time—are shiftedfirst, and a test is made to determinewhether there is any remaining capacity in theHOT lane. This iterative process is repeated,and tolls set progressively downward, until anequilibrium condition in the HOT lane isreached. This process determines an “optimaltoll”—a process that mirrors a real worlddynamic tolling process.Although there are a number of cases of underestimates,experience around the country withtoll roads and transit systems indicates thatdemand projections and revenue forecasts aremore likely to err on the high side.Overestimates of revenue potential can result inunexpected public expenditures or even projectdefault. Therefore, it is preferable to build-inconservative assumptions regarding traveldemand characteristics and the underlying economicconditions that drive travel demandforecasts. Such assumptions are questioned as amatter of course in the due diligence reviewsthat private lenders require when they financeinfrastructure projects. Similarly rating agenciesfocus closely on forecasting assumptions whenrating project bonds. However, there may be aparticular risk of overestimating utilization andrevenue levels when these types of financingmechanisms are not being used.5.3.4Financing HOT Lane ProjectsPotential Sources of HOT Lane FinancingThere are many different strategies that may bepursued to finance HOT lane projects. Allprojects are unique in this regard and there isno single approach that will be universallyFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT55

Chapter 5 Technical IssuesFigure 21.HOT Lane RevenueEstimate: SketchPlanning ProcessYesHOV Lane Already Exists?NoUse current LOS to estimate maximumaverage remaining vehicle capacity inthe HOV lane for free flow conditions:additional vehicles per hour.Estimate HOV use at zero HOT toll(i.e., as conventional HOV lane).Estimate based on known numberof multi-occupant vehicles in trafficstream.Calculate current LOS in the generallane(s), and determine reduction invehicles per hour to achieve free flowcondition.Calculate vehicle hours of congestiondelay in general lane(s) during HOVoperation, vs. free flow condition.Compute total “cost” of congestion delayin general lane(s) assuming FHWA valueof time, average vehicle occupancy, andincome distribution, if available.SimplifiedmethodologyMore complexmethodologySet HOT toll at average cost ofcongestion delay for vehicles in generallane. “Shift”vehicles out of general laneto the HOT lane, up to the availableexcess capacityof HOV lane.Set HOT toll at hourly cost ofcongestion delay for the top tenpercentile of income distribution.“Shift”top ten percent of vehicles toHOT lane.Compute HOT revenue.Additional Capacity Remains in HOT Lane?Adjust for ATC market penetrationfactor.YesRe-estimate congestion delay in generallane for fewer vehicles in general lane.NoCompute HOTrevenue.Reset HOT toll at hourly cost ofcongestion delay for next highest decile.Shift to HOT.Additional Capacity Remains in HOT Lane?YesNoReiterate above steps until HOT capacityis exhausted.Compute HOTrevenue using thelast toll iteration.Figure 21. HOT Lane Revenue Estimate: Sketch Planning Process56 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical Issuesappropriate. The SR 91 in California wasfinanced on a limited recourse basis with a privatedeveloper borrowing the necessary fundsfrom capital market sources and is repaying itsdebt from toll revenues. Sponsored by the localMPO, the I-15 in San Diego involved the conversionof an existing HOV facility. The HOVlanes had initially been constructed using transitmonies and local transit providers supportedthe HOT conversion because the MPO agreedto dedicate the majority of the resulting tollrevenues to support local transit improvements.Funding for the conversion of the facility wasprovided by the FHWA Value Pricing PilotProgram. Table 6 summarizes financial detailsassociated with these two facilities. Additionalinformation on the financing approaches forthese particular projects, among others, is providedtogether with background and contextinformation in Chapter 7.The following discussion identifies a range ofpossible funding sources and techniques thatcould be pursued for other HOT lane projects.1. Federal Demonstration FundsThe Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury (TEA-21) permits the U.S.Department of Transportation’s FHWA toenter into cooperative agreements with up to15 State or local governments or other publicauthorities to establish, maintain, and monitorvalue pricing projects of which HOT lanes areone category. Any value pricing project includedunder these local programs may involve theuse of tolls on the Interstate System. A maximumof $7 million was authorized for fiscalyear (FY) 1999, and $11 million for each ofFYs 2000 through 2003 to be made availableto carry out the requirements of the ValuePricing Pilot Program. The Federal matchingshare for local programs is 80 percent. Fundsallocated by the Secretary to a State under thisSection will remain available for obligation bythe State for a period of 3 years after the lastday of the fiscal year for which the funds areauthorized.SR 91LocationDescriptionSponsorCost (facility constructionand ETC equipment)Type of FinanceTolling StructureI-15LocationDescriptionSponsor/PartnersCost (ETC equipment)Type of FinanceTolling StructureOrange County, CaliforniaA four-lane, privately-owned and operated toll facility built inthe median of a 16 km section of the 91 Riverside Freeway, apre-existing CalTrans facility. Entry and exit are restricted tothe facility’s two endpoints.CalTransOrange County Transportation Authority$130 million$65 million in 14-year variable rate bank loans$35 million in longer term loans (24 years)$20 million private equity$ 9 million subordinated debt to OCTA to purchasepreviously-completed engineering and environmental workAs of January 2, 2001, tolls on the Express Lanes variedbetween $0.75 and $4.25, with HOVs receiving a 50 %reduction.San Diego, CaliforniaAn eight-mile, two-lane facility located in the I-15 median.Lanes operate only during the peak in the direction of thecommute: southbound in the morning and northbound in theevening. Entry and exit are restricted to the facility’s two endpoints. Carpools of two or more, buses, and motorcyclestravel free, while SOVs must pay a fee. Toll revenues supporttransit service in the corridor.SANDAGCaltrans (California Department of Transportation)California Highway Patrol (provides enforcement)Metropolitan Transit Development BoardFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration$130 million$9.95 million$7.96 million FHWA Value Pricing Pilot Program grant$1.99 million local matching funds$230,000 Federal Transit AdministrationDynamic tolling. Generally, the toll ranges between $0.50 to$4.00, depending on current traffic conditions, however tollsmay be raised up to $8.00 when traffic congestion is severe.Toll rates are adjusted every 12 minutes in response to realtimetraffic volumes.Table 6.Financial details of theSR 91 and I-15FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT57

Chapter 5Technical Issues2. State FundsIn locations where there are no prohibitionsagainst using state monies to construct a tollfacility, state transportation funds may be usedto support construction of HOT lane facilities.State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs) are one ofthe most logical sources of state support forHOT lane projects. SIBs are revolving fundsthat function much like a private bank and canoffer a range of loans and other credit assistanceenhancements to public and privatesponsors of highway or transit projects. 17 SIBscan provide loans—at or below-market rates—loan guarantees, standby lines of credit, lettersof credit, certificates of participation, debt servicereserve funds, bond insurance, and otherforms of non-grant assistance.SIB support may be used to attract private,local, and additional state financial resources,leveraging a small amount of SIB assistanceinto a larger dollar investment. Alternatively,SIB capital can be used as collateral to borrowin the bond market or to establish a guaranteedreserve fund. Loan demand, timing ofneeds, and debt financing considerations arefactors to be considered by states in evaluatinga leveraged SIB approach.Most SIBs were established using Federal-aidgrants and local match funds as seed money. Asloans or other credit assistance are repaid, aSIB’s initial capital is replenished and can beused to support new projects. Therefore theresources available to many SIBs are likely tobe constrained. However, as of mid-2002 additionalFederal funding for SIBs in California,Florida, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Texasprovide significant new resources for SIB loansand credit enhancements in those states.Among other facilities, SIB funding has been17One of the most comprehensive sources of informationon the SIB program is the FHWA StateInfrastructure Bank Review, which is available onlineat http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativefinance/sibreview/index.htmused to support the construction of thePocahontas Parkway in Virginia and ButlerRegional Highway in Ohio.3. Local Sales Tax InitiativesWith shrinking federal and state budgets, localinitiatives have been used successfully to fundtransportation improvements. But a key to thistype of funding mechanism is outlining whatwill be built with the money before the legislationgoes to a vote so that citizens will knowwhat they are getting. In the case of a HOTlane, the revenue allocation plan would alsoneed to be spelled out before the initiative istaken to the voters so that the funds can beaccounted for. People are less likely to vote totax themselves if they feel that the money isgoing to go into a black hole of bureaucracy,so definition of the projects on which themoney will be spent and strict accountabilityfor the funds after they are collected is of paramountimportance from the outset.Sales taxes, while they have the potential forsignificant revenue generation, are also highlysensitive to economic cycles. Currently, manytransportation agencies that rely extensively onthis source are experiencing funding gaps, asthe economy has slowed to near-recession conditions,and in response to the terrorist attacks.Other sources of local transportation financeare also available and have been utilized; theseinclude motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle registrationtaxes, commuter taxes, tax incrementfinancing, and other forms of special assessment.4. Bonds/Private FinancingDebt financing through the sale of bondsleveraging future toll revenues is a commonapproach for financing toll roads. Bond optionsinclude 1) taxable toll-revenue bonds, whichare the only kind private sector sponsors canissue—private bonds were used to finance theSR 91 Express Lanes—and 2) tax-exempt tollrevenue bonds issued by state toll agencies,public authorities, or special-purpose 63-2058 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical Issuespublic-benefit corporations. The fact that publicagencies have access to tax-exempt financinglowers their borrowing costs as well as the revenuesrequired to repay bond obligations.Debt service costs for private issuers is generallyhigher than for public agencies and are likelyto require proportionally larger revenuestreams to cover debt payments. Shareholderequity is also an important component of privatebond financings.5. Innovative Financing ProgramsGiven that they generate dedicated and independentrevenue streams, HOT lanes also lendthemselves well to a number of innovativefinance programs established by the USDepartment of Transportation. The followingare particularly well suited to HOT laneprojects. 18Section 129 LoansSection 129 of Title 23 U.S.C. allows Federalparticipation in state loans to a public or privateentity supporting the construction of tollhighways and other non-tolled projects withother dedicated revenue sources, such as excisetaxes, sales taxes, real property taxes, motorvehicle taxes, incremental property taxes, orother beneficiary fees.There are no Federal requirements that applyto how a state selects a public or private entity.Rather, this selection process is governed bystate law, and it is the state’s responsibility toensure that the recipient uses the loan for thespecified purposes. Assuming that a projectmeets the test for eligibility, a loan can bemade at any time. The Federal-aid loan may be18Additional information on these innovative financingprograms is available in the FHWA InnovativeFinance Primer at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativefinance/ifp/index.htm;the NCHRP InnovativeFinance Clearinghouse http://www.innovativefinance.org/,the FHWA Innovative Finance Websitehttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovativefinance/, and theTIFIA program Website http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/.for any amount, provided the maximumFederal share (typically 80 percent) of the totaleligible project costs is not exceeded.States have the flexibility to negotiate interestrates and other terms of Section 129 loans andthe loans can be combined with other flexiblematch and advanced construction programs.The President George Bush Turnpike, a tollroad connecting Dallas with its expandingnorthern suburbs, was the first highway facilityto be financed with Section 129 loans.TIFIAThe Transportation Infrastructure Finance andInnovation Act (TIFIA) credit program offersthree types of financial assistance that could beused to support HOT lanes:■■■Direct flexible repayment loans to covercapital construction and financing costs;Loan guarantees that provide full-faith-andcreditguarantees by the Federal governmentto institutional investors making loansfor projects; andStandby lines of credit providing secondarysources of funding in the form of contingentFederal loans. These loans may bedrawn upon to supplement project revenues,if needed, during the first 10 years ofproject operations.TIFIA project sponsors may be public or privateentities, including state and local governments,special purpose authorities, transportationimprovement districts, and private firms orconsortia. However, the overall amount ofFederal credit assistance may not exceed 33percent of total project costs. TIFIA assistanceinvolves a competitive Federal applicationprocess. Project must meet threshold criteria toqualify, and estimated eligible costs must be atleast $100 million or 50 percent of the state’sannual Federal-aid highway apportionments,whichever is less, or at least $30 million forIntelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) proj-FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT59

Chapter 5Technical Issuesects. Project must also be supported in wholeor part by user charges or other non-Federaldedicated funding sources and included in thestate’s Transportation Plan. If individual HOTlane projects do not meet these minimumthreshold criteria, they could still be eligible forTIFIA assistance if they were integrated withother larger regional improvements under aRecord of Decision.These financing and credit enhancement toolsmay also be combined or used in innovativeways with other more traditional fundingsources.5.4Other Technical Analyses andApprovals5.4.1Preparing HOT Lane Cost EstimatesThe estimation of HOT lane capital investmentand ongoing operations and maintenance(O&M) costs during the planning stage is usefulfor several reasons. Reasonably accurate anddetailed cost estimates are needed to completecost effectiveness and benefit-cost (economicfeasibility) analyses.Operating CostsHOT lane operating costs include the followingareas, some of which are not typically associatedwith “free” or non-priced roadways,including:■■■■■Toll processing, collection, account managementand transponder distribution;Administrative functions including advertisingand marketing;Physical facility operations, including trafficdata collection and monitoring equipment,dynamic pricing, occupancy observation,and enforcement;Physical facility routine maintenance; andPeriodic or extraordinary maintenance andrehabilitation.Capital CostsCapital investment costs include all of thoseapplicable to a typical roadway facility plusthose associated with toll collection, trafficmonitoring and other technology applications.The cost of converting an existing HOV laneto HOT operation is mostly attached to theimplementation of the technology and thespace needed to provide that technology in theform of electronic toll collection equipment,manual and video enforcement, static anddynamic signage, CCTV cameras, etc.If an HOV facility is being considered as aninterim step toward future HOT lane implementation,there are really no throwaway costsin the initial construction. The HOT operationinfrastructure can and should be planned for aspart of the initial HOV construction and put inplace so that the highway does not need to bereconstructed a second time a few years afterthe HOV lane is implemented. Toll facilitieswould not be constructed, but much of themanagement infrastructure (loop detectors,cameras, communications, and utilities) can beconstructed early and at marginal incrementalcost. These facilities can also be used to operatethe HOV lanes prior to HOT conversion.If a newly opened HOV facility is being consideredfor HOT lane conversion without thebenefit of any earlier planning, then there canbe some “throw-away costs.” Pavement mayneed to be reconstructed to allow conduit tobe installed under the lanes or shoulder.Median barriers may need to be replaced toaccept additional signage. Drainage facilitiesmay need to be modified to address an additionalbarrier (if one is installed). All of theseissues can be addressed ahead of time if conversionis considered from the beginning. Ofcourse, an HOV lane that has been in operationfor ten or more years has already suppliedmany years of use and any changes that wouldbe made to convert it to HOT operationshould not be considered “throw-away.”60 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical IssuesAt the planning stage for a HOT lane project,particularly if a detailed financial model has notyet been developed to evaluate the project, itmay be necessary to annualize the constantdollarcapital cost estimates for various HOTlane and non-priced alternatives to facilitatevarious comparisons. This is typically doneusing capital recovery factors that take appropriateproject financial life and discount rateassumptions into account. It is appropriate tocombine annualized capital costs with annualO&M costs to arrive at a total annual cost factor.This may be useful input to assessing abusiness operating objective, modeling demandunder such an objective involving profit or costrecovery criteria, conducting cost-effectivenesscomparisons, or evaluating economic feasibilityusing benefit-cost analyses.5.4.2Economic EvaluationEconomic analyses of HOT lane initiativesgenerate important information that comparesthe benefits afforded by the projects with thecost of building and operating them.Economic assessments are used by decisionmakers to compare the benefits and overall efficacyof investment projects of all types andidentify those that provide the greatest benefits.They are often required by Federal agenciesbefore disbursing grants and are also oftenincluded in environmental impact statementsand major investment studies. In that theyquantify the benefits of HOT lane projects indifferent ways, the information generatedthrough economic analyses is also essential topublic outreach efforts and in garnering politicalsupport.Economic analyses focus on the calculation of anumber of important indicators.Benefit-Cost RatioThe benefit-cost ratio (BCR) gives the ratio ofa project’s present value benefits to its presentvalue costs. In addition to being the mostcommonly recognized measure of economicEvaluation Tools and Economic Feasibility MeasuresSeveral available sketch planning and modeling tools may be tailored forevaluating HOT projects. The FHWA has developed several software packages,listed below, to help provide decision makers with useful informationfor comparing alternative transportation solutions. Regardless of the toolemployed, reasonable results are dependent on using reasonable assumptionsand relevant measures for quantifying and valuing benefits and costs.When using a software package, it is particularly important to understandand review the assumptions made within the software to ensure that theyare appropriate for the project.■■■■Sketch Planning Analysis Spreadsheet Model (SPASM) is a corridorsketch planning tool that shows economic efficiency information forcross-modal and demand management strategies. Seehttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/spasm.htmFor more detailed corridor analysis and to facilitate systemwide analysis,the Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM) reportsmobility and safety benefits by user-defined districts and an accessibilitymeasure. The district reporting and accessibility features help to gaugethe social impacts of transportation investments.http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/index.htmFHWA’s Spreadsheet Model for Induced Travel Estimation (SMITE)accounts for new travel that may be induced by highway expansion overand above that which is simply diverted from other regional highways.http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/smite.htmIMPACTS is a series of spreadsheets for screening-level evaluation ofmulti-modal corridor alternatives. Inputs are travel demand estimates bymode for each alternative. The impacts estimated include costs ofimplementation, induced travel demand, benefits including trip timeand out-of-pocket cost changes such as fares, parking fees and tolls,other highway user costs such as accident costs, revenue transfers due totolls, fares or parking fees, changes in fuel consumption and changes inemissions.http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/impacts.htmfeasibility, the BCR is useful for comparingprojects of different scale or financial size sinceit assesses economic efficiency.For consistency reasons, it is important to clarifywhich items will be classified as benefits, andwhich as costs, regardless of whether they arenegative or positive dollar amounts, since thiswill affect the estimation of the benefit BCR,discussed further in the next section. Typically,FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT61

Chapter 5Technical Issuesall direct, indirect, and mitigation costs of constructingand implementing the project, andproviding for its ongoing operations and maintenance,are labeled as costs and put in thedenominator of the BCR, even if they representcost savings relative to the basis of comparison.These cost items may include:■■■■■Capital investment, design and constructioncosts;Right-of-way costs;Mitigation costs;Routine and ongoing annual operationsand maintenance costs; andPeriodic rehabilitation or extraordinarymaintenance costs.Other factors, whether user benefits, cost savings,eliminated costs, or even disbenefits, arelabeled as benefits and flow to the numeratorof the BCR. Typical HOT lane benefits mayinclude, but are not limited to:■■■■■■The value of user travel time savings;Adjacent road travel time savings orcosts;Vehicle operating cost savings;Accident reduction savings;Incident/accident reduction congestiontime savings; andEmission savings or costs.Net Present ValueThe net present value criterion (NPV) givesthe net benefit of a project in absolute presentdollar terms. HOT project ‘A’ could have ahigher NPV and yet a lower BCR than project‘B’ if project ‘A’ is a larger scale project; however,in this example, project ‘B’ would bemore cost-effective, generating more benefitfor each dollar of cost.Economic Rate of ReturnThe economic rate of return (ERR) sometimesreferred to as the internal rate of return, givesthe effective discount rate for which the project’sbenefits would just equal its costs, inpresent value terms. In other words, it is thediscount rate that yields a BCR of 1.0. AnERR significantly greater than the real discountrate indicates economic feasibility even with amodest margin of error in measurement ofbenefits and costs.5.4.3Environmental ApprovalsDiscretionary federal actions generally requirereview under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA). In completing thesereviews, the lead agency evaluates the proposedaction to determine whether it is included in alist of actions that have been predeterminednot to result in significant environmentaleffects and may be categorically excluded fromenvironmental review. Actions categoricallyexcluded by FHWA are identified in 23 CFRPart 771.117. Part 771 specifically excludes“modernization of a highway by resurfacing,restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction,adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes(e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing)”from environmental review. Certain HOT laneprojects could potentially fall under this exclusion,depending on the extent of new constructionor other components of the proposedaction.Environmental reviews for HOT lane projectswill include the same component analyses asother highway projects. However, unlike general-purposehighway improvements, HOTlane initiatives utilize occupancy requirementsand user fees as tools to manage traffic flows.As such, they can be expected to have generallypositive effects on the movement of traffic andtraffic-driven environmental concerns, such asnoise, air quality and energy consumption. Inaddition, given that HOT lane projects affecttraffic conditions on managed and general-purposelanes in different ways, the analysis of traffic-drivenimpacts will need to quantify theresulting impacts separately, and then assess thecollective effects on the environment.62 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 5Technical IssuesIn the case of HOV conversions, differentenvironmental scenarios can be envisioned. Ifoccupancy requirements for free travel in theHOT lane facility remain the same as for theHOV lanes they replace, traffic service andtravel speeds should improve on the HOT lanecorridor. These changes would result in positiveenvironmental affects and would notrequire detailed assessment. However, anincrease in the occupancy requirement for freetravel in the HOT lane could warrant environmentalanalysis, as it would have the potentialto induce additional general-purpose lane trips,resulting in increased congestion and lowertravel speeds.Finally, it is important to recognize that prolongedenvironmental reviews have the potentialto delay the implementation of highwayprojects, and increase their capital costs as aresult of inflation during the ensuing period.Transportation officials should weigh thepotential for such delays carefully, especiallywhen considering developing HOT lane projectson a public-private partnership basis.Increased delay brings with it increased risk,thereby increasing financing costs. Togetherthese factors can render an otherwise attractiveinvestment opportunity unworkable for potentialprivate sector partners.Air QualityOne of the expected benefits of HOT lanesinvolves having more vehicles in the corridormoving at higher and more stable speeds.Generally speaking, this should result in a benefit(albeit small) in air quality, as faster movingvehicles generate less pollution. Slower, stopand-gotraffic—which would be expected withover-utilized general-purpose or HOV lanes—would produce more pollution. While air qualityreview may show an advantage for HOTlanes over general-purpose lanes (at least), thatadvantage is likely to be fairly small and maynot provide a compelling argument on its ownto justify the investment. However, in conjunctionwith other potential benefits, air qualityimprovements could be a factor in garneringsupport for HOT lane applications.NoiseUnlike air quality, traffic-induced noise levelsincrease with speed. Depending on the locationof the HOT lane—whether it is in themedian of an existing highway, a separate alignmentadjacent to the highway, or a former railalignment, for example—and its effect onspeeds, the resulting noise levels could bereduced, increased, or remain about the same.Construction of new lanes to the outside ofexisting lanes also could result in increasednoise levels at nearby sensitive land uses. Thepotential for noise impacts should be assessedduring the planning stage to determine the differencesin the various configurations understudy.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT63

Chapter 6Operational IssuesAs tolled facilities, HOT lanes have a numberof operational needs—such as toll collectionand enforcement—that are not normally associatedwith general-purpose or HOV highwayfacilities. This chapter provides information onthe different operational aspects for whichHOT lane operators are normally responsible,with the exception of public outreach, which isaddressed in Chapter 4.6.1Lane ManagementAs with HOV lanes, HOT lane traffic levelsneed to be limited to volumes that ensure reliablespeed advantages when adjacent generalpurposelanes are congested. Without this typeof management the HOT lane facilities alsorisk becoming congested and losing their benefits.Two issues are critical in lane management:■■Quantifying how much additional lanecapacity can be made available to payingvehicles before congestion occurs; andDeveloping an understanding of the typesof strategies that can be applied to regulatedemand.These issues are discussed in the followingsections.Maximum Capacity Versus ManagedCapacityVarious references provide an understanding ofhighway lane capacity. This capacity is based onthe maximum flow that can be expected tooccur under the prevailing conditions. As volumeincreases, speed gradually decreases untilreaching a point of instability typically between2000 and 2100 vehicles per lane per hour.When throughput degrades beyond maximumcapacity, speeds decline to levels around 15miles per hour and flows drop as low as 1300vehicles per lane per hour. Analysis of speedflowdata on congested highways in greaterLos Angeles using the Caltrans PerformanceMeasurement System in September 2000 suggeststhat contrary to the Highway CapacityManual range of 35-50 mph, 60 mph is theoptimal rush hour speed facilitating the highestthroughput levels. 19When lanes are managed to promote “freeflow” conditions, as is the case for HOT lanes,throughput must be contained to a level belowmaximum capacity. This regulated threshold,or managed capacity, is simply a managementbenchmark that ensures premium traffic servicefor HOT lane users.Much like the design and operational variablesidentified in the Highway Capacity Manual,managed capacity levels may vary from oneHOT facility to another depending on thenumber of access points, vehicle mix, roadwayslope and configuration, separation treatments,and number of travel lanes. A single HOT lanewill have a lower managed capacity than multipleHOT lanes. For example, flows on theHouston I-10 Katy Freeway QuickRide—a onelane, reversible-flow facility are kept to 1500vehicles/hour. However, the SR 91 ExpressLanes—which provide two travel lanes in eachdirection—have been able to operate at acceptableconditions with flow rates of 1800 vehicles/hour/lane.A safe range for establishing managed capacityfor most project settings would be approximately1700 hourly automobile equivalents perlane, with the understanding that road configuration,slopes and speed limits can drive thisnumber up or down. This threshold is reflectedin a number of HOV references and locally19Freeway Performance Measurement Project,University of California at Berkeley, Partners forAdvanced Transit and Highways, Caltrans,September 2000.http://pems.eecs.berkeley.edu/login.phtml64 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 6Operational Issuesadopted policies, and is also appropriate forHOT lanes. Local traffic studies can be used toidentify more precise, site-specific capacity levels.This may also be accomplished by studyingthe effects of allowing small numbers of additionalonto the managed lanes in order toidentify an optimal managed capacity.It is important to understand that for anyHOT lane to be successful, the facility must beregulated at a managed level that is well belowthe maximum capacity cited in the HighwayCapacity Manual. As described above, theoperators of projects including I-15 FasTrakhave taken steps to open the lanes gradually tomore over time, in order to insure that theHOT lanes do not become congested. Thisconservative approach enabled the HOT conceptto gain public credibility before attemptingto maximize the number of users.Management ToolsWhile the role of lane management in preservingHOT lane benefits is evident, the actualapplication of management techniques can becomplex and dynamic. Although much attentionfocused on the role that pricing can playin regulating lane demand, pricing is only oneof a number of management policies that canbe used with HOT lanes. The following threetools are used to maintain superior traffic servicelevels on HOT lane facilities:■■■Pricing: imposing a user fee on the lanesthat help regulate demand by time of day orday of week. The fee increases during periodsof highest demand.Occupancy: limiting lane use to vehiclescarrying a minimum number of passengers.Two (HOV 2) and three (HOV 3) minimumsare typical occupancy constraints.Eligibility: limiting lane use to specifictypes of users, such as HOVs, motorcycles,low emission vehicles, or trucks. Most typicallyfor HOT lane settings, such use wouldbe limited to selected hours or specificaccess ramps.■Traffic Models Validate the Operational Benefits of HOT lanesA recent UCLA Ph.D. dissertation by Eugene Kim provides new andimportant quantitative analysis of HOT lanes. The study, HOT lanes: AComparative Evaluation of Costs, Benefits, and Performance uses a logittravel-demand model to compare changes in travel times associated withthe conversion of an existing HOV lane in a congested corridor to:■■■a general purpose lane;a HOT lane; or,a toll lane.Kim’s research finds that in almost all cases, HOT lanes or toll lanes providegreater fiscal and mobility benefits. Conversion to general purposelanes is only defensible when HOV use is less than 7 percent of all corridortrips and when there are fewer than 700 vehicles per hour in an HOVlane. Otherwise, the implementation of tolls on HOV lanes producesgreater benefits because tolling preserves free-flow conditions on the managedfacility, even if congestion worsens on the general purpose lanes.Kim’s modeling work also demonstrated that either tolling option wouldproduce large delay reduction benefits regardless of whether the conversionresults in a significant increase or decrease in the proportion ofHOVs. Similarly, Kim’s research finds that in terms of air quality the HOVbase case would produce greater output of toxins such as NOx and COthan conversion to either general purpose or toll lanes. However, toll laneswould produce the largest reduction in emissions because they eliminatevehicle trips and reduce congestion more effectively compared with generalpurpose lanes.Kim’s research corroborates speed flow analyses and other traffic performanceand air quality studies conducted around the country.This description of Kim’s findings is based on a summary appearing in “ReasonSurface Transportation Innovations Newsletter #4,” Reason Institute, August 6,2002.Access: limiting or metering ingress to thelane or spacing access so that demand cannotoverwhelm HOT lane capacity.Applied in combination, these tools give theoperating agency a wide range of opportunitiesto flexibly adjust demand conditions to meetavailable lane capacity. Traffic service conditionsneed to be monitored on an on-goingbasis to determine whether pricing structuresare meeting the performance goals (e.g., trafficservice, customer satisfaction) established forthe facility.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT65

Chapter 6Operational IssuesManagement Measures on Two Existing HOT FacilitiesOn the I-15 reversible lanes in San Diego, pricing, access and eligibility allplay roles in lane management. Access is limited to a single set of ingressand egress ramps with the project functioning as a pipeline. No intermediateaccess is provided, so mainline demand cannot be overwhelmed by toomany entering vehicles. HOVs with two or more persons are given a freetrip to encourage carpool formation and transit use, and others are priced.Pricing varies significantly between peak and off-peak conditions to helpregulate demand. Collectively, these strategies ensure that the I-15 projectprovides a high-speed, reliable trip to users.On the I-10 Katy Freeway in Houston, a single reversible lane with morelimited capacity than I-15 contains about five ingress and egress locationsalong a 12-mile distance. The potential to overload the lane exists with thismany access points. The Katy HOV lane exceeded capacity during peakhours with 2+ occupant carpools and transit, so eligibility rules were raisedduring these isolated peak periods to 3+. The residual capacity left byremoving many of the carpools was ultimately provided to 2-occupant carpoolsfor a price that is fixed per trip. With a very limited lane capacity thepotential for dynamic pricing is not critical to managing demand on thisfacility, but restricting use to a smaller potential priced market was. Thisapproach successfully ensures that as many vehicles as possible can still travelin the lane during periods of greatest demand.The Conversion of HOV Facilities to HOTOperationsAt present, approximately 70 percent of thenation’s HOV lane miles operate with peakhour volumes of between 900 and 1500 vehicles/hour.Ten to 15 percent are operatingwith over 1500 peak hour vehicles, and theremaining 10 to 15 percent below 900 vehiclesin peak hours. This suggests that there is someavailable capacity to allow other user groups oncertain HOV facilities. However, residualcapacity is quite limited and additional trafficlevels would need to be managed closely.Changes in occupancy regulations on HOVfacilities can alter utilization levels and result inadditional capacity becoming available for possibleuse by non-HOV vehicles. Occupancyrequirements are set at 2+ on approximately 95percent of all lane miles operated in the UnitedStates. An increase to HOV 3+ operation canbe expected to lower traffic levels dramatically,making an HOV 2 or SOV possible, as was thecase with the Katy Freeway in Houston.Access to HOV lanes is either continuous or atdesignated locations. About half the nation’slane miles restrict access to designated locations.An access designation threshold is typicallynot less than every 2-3 miles. Few ofthese sites with restricted access have changedaccess yet to make lanes more restrictive whenvolumes reach capacity. This is one tool thatmay be used more in the future.An Ongoing ProcessThe role of operations management is criticalto successful HOT lane performance. The rolerelies on a fundamental understanding of thefacility’s available vehicle carrying capacityunder varying conditions, and an understandingof how various management tools can beemployed in combination to achieve reliable“free flow” conditions while optimizing utilization.This balancing process can be extremelydynamic, changing when incidents occur andas demand builds and falls in each successivepeak period. The ability to manage a HOTlane requires an ongoing monitoring presenceand ability to aggressively react to conditionsthat adversely affect roadway performance.Without this complement of operations presence,a HOT lane is unlikely to meet its objectivesin commute periods when it is most neededand justified.6.2Toll Collection and RegistryProcedures6.2.1Pilot Period Monthly PermitsDuring pilot test periods, monthly permits maybe issued to a select group of motorists. Whilethis approach does present certain enforcementchallenges, the permit system is low in cost andeasy to implement. In both Houston and SanDiego, HOT lane operations were first implementedon test basis in order to determine66 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 6Operational Issueswhether they would achieve the desired effectson traffic operations and also win the acceptanceof the public. As such, it was important tominimize the upfront costs, so rather than relyingon expensive electronic toll collectionequipment, HOT lane users were issuedmonthly permits that they displayed on theirvehicles. The permits are generally hang-tags orstickers that can be mailed to participatingmotorists who then display them on theirwindshields when using the HOT lane. Thehang-tags or stickers need to be visible forenforcement purposes, but should not obstructthe driver’s view. 20Although test programs relying on monthlypasses are relatively simple to implement, theyhave a downside in that they involve selling amonth of unlimited trips and cannot sell singletrips in the same way that that ETC technologiescan. When equipped with an ETCtransponder, motorists are able to make discriminatingdecisions about when to pay forthe premium travel conditions the HOT lanesprovide.6.2.2Automated Variable Priced TollCollectionIf HOT lane operations are maintained on apermanent basis, it is best to automate toll collection.The equipment requirements and technicalfunctions of automated toll collection systemsare described earlier in Section 4.2.A protocol for distributing transponders tocustomers needs to be established, togetherwith a financial/accounting system to reconcile20A similar approach was followed on the nowdefunct Connecticut Turnpike in the 1950’s and60’s. Instead of a tag, a license plate was affixed tothe front of the vehicle. Similarly the DelawareRiver Port Authority (DRPA), which for years useda monthly “Bar Coded” system enabling holders topay a much lower toll in automated lanes if theyused the DRPA bridges more often in a givenmonth.patron accounts as well as toll payments attributedto other agencies where reciprocity hasbeen established for toll payments. These functions,whether facilitated by public or privateagency, could be performed by that agency orpotentially outsourced.Issuing TranspondersGenerally motorists order transponders by telephoneor over the Internet. In certain casesthey are also available at a customer servicecenter (Figure 22). Payment policies also needto be established, and operating agencies mayfind it to their advantage to require users topay via credit or debit cards rather than cash.Similarly, HOT lane operators will also need todetermine whether or not motorists should berequired to pay a fee to obtain the transponderitself.In certain cases, HOT lane operators may use aregion-wide automated toll collection system.If this is the case, the agency will need toadhere to the distribution policies and windowplacement guidelines established by the regionalconsortium of tolling agencies that use thetechnology.Registry ProceduresGiven that all tolls are collected electronicallyand involve no cash transactions, internalFigure 22.I-15 FasTrak Service CenterFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT67

Chapter 6Operational Issuesaccounting procedures for HOT lanes are simplerthan those required by traditional toll facilities.The computer systems and software runningthe ETC equipment are also capable ofinstigating credit card transactions, generatingbills, and generating detailed reports allowingagency officials to track all financial activity.If the HOT lane operator is participating in aregion-wide automated toll collection system,the facility will be assigned a use code that willbe included in all transactions in order to distinguishit from other tolled facilities.This is the case in Orange County in particular,as well as Houston, both of which operate aHOT lane facility in addition to regional tollroads.Both types of facilities share the sametransponder technology, same accounting database,and same outlets for purchasing and subscribingto the various programs (althoughthere are some unique exceptions to this ateach locale). Recent experience shows that useof HOT lanes is made more convenient if thetransponders for a project are the same as forother toll facilities in a given locale or region.6.3EnforcementEnforcement procedures need to be establishedfor HOT lane facilities to ensure that motoristscomply with both occupancy and toll policies. 21Given that toll collection on HOT facilities iselectronic, some violations may be unintentionalas unfamiliar motorists might expect to beable to make a cash payment at a manned tollbooth and then be unable to exit due to thepresence of barrier systems. Equipment malfunctionscould result in nonpayment by regularusers who have every intention of paying21With the proper systems in place, the enforcementof HOT lane facilities should be no more difficultthan that of HOV facilities. Given that HOTfacilities provide SOV motorists with a legal optionfor obtaining faster trips, HOT lanes may actuallyreduce the temptation to violate.the prescribed toll. Nonetheless, drivers canalso avoid payment intentionally, such as usingtags reserved for vehicles paying lower tolls(i.e., HOVs), shielding the transponder, orusing the HOT lane without a tag.Consistent signage and police presence shouldconvey the message to motorists that the likelihoodof being cited for violations is high. It isespecially important to educate motorists duringthe first days of operation and then to continuereinforcing the message. 22 One of themost effective techniques is to install signagethat explains the use of video enforcementtechniques. Visible and consistent police presencenear tolling points further reduces thelikelihood of violations and deters motoristsfrom fraudulent activity, the use of the wrongtag, or the opportunity to “evade the toll”.Violators are also less likely to enter a HOTfacility if there are limited opportunities toescape and if the perception of being caughtis high.At the operational level, enforcement can beimplemented using several different surveillanceand detection procedures. The methodschosen depend on several factors including thenature of violations police are trying to addressand the physical characteristics of the corridor.Enforcement personnel should provide inputduring the planning and design of HOT lanefacilities in order to optimize their ability topatrol them once they become operational.6.3.1Enforcement Techniques and ProceduresToll CollectionGiven their strong dependence on automatedtoll collection systems, the enforcement of tollinfractions on HOT lanes also relies heavily onthose same systems. The general trend in22Seattle routinely uses a special motorcycleenforcement squad for the first six months of anyHOV project operation.68 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 6Operational Issuesenforcing toll collection on HOT lanes andother facilities using ETC technologies is videosurveillance. This approach involves the use ofin-lane toll violation cameras at tolling points,which are integrated with other ETC systemsand triggered when incomplete or anomaloustransactions occur. This is a highly effective,cost-efficient, and non-intrusive method(Figure 23). 23 Repeat offenders are generallysubject to legal action, as are those who shunpayment. Special state legislation is normallyrequired before automated video surveillanceenforcement methods can be put in place.Legislation is also likely to be needed to provideaccess to Department of Motor Vehicle records.Occupancy RequirementsGiven the limitations of automated technologiesand the difficulties of verifying the numberof occupants in a vehicle, the enforcement ofoccupancy requirements requires routine visualinspection. Several challenges are involvedincluding vehicle design, tinted windows,inclement weather, limited lighting, lack ofenforcement locations, and small occupantssuch as children and infants who may not beclearly visible to outside observers.Enforcement officers generally park adjacent tothe lanes and stand outside their vehicles tohave a better view of the approaching vehicles.This approach can be effective, but can increasecongestion especially if more than one patrolvehicle is involved. A physical inspection of suspectedoccupancy violators has proven an effectiveenforcement technique on the I-15 in SanDiego.23Legislation may be required in order to use camerasfor law enforcement purposes in certain locations.Fixed, single-frame toll violation camerasshould not be confused with video surveillance systemsthat use steereable moving picture cameras tosurvey larger areas in order to monitor traffic conditionsand detect incidents.Automated Violations ProcessingWhen video enforcement is used on facilities such as the E-470 EXPRESSLanes in Denver Colorado or the Port Authority of New York and NewJersey’s bridge and tunnel crossings, a Violation Processing Center (VPC)is established to process transactions. An investigation into a potential violationis triggered by when the violation of a business rule is detected. Thiscould involve a mismatch between tag class and AVC class; a vehicle enteringwith no tag; a vehicle using a lost, stolen or otherwise invalid tag. Insuch a case, the ETC systems communicate in real time with in-lane tollviolation cameras that capture an image of the license plate of the suspectvehicle. The image and other information related to the anomalous transactionare then transmitted digitally over a secure fiber optic backbonefrom the lane to a local computer, and then on to a violation host computerat the VPC which receives similar information from all tolling points.Here each image linked to a transaction is viewed for clarity and checkedagainst a list of a registered program subscribers before an invoice for thetoll and administrative fee is mailed to the violator. Department of MotorVehicle records are used to verify the name and addresses of the registeredowners of the violating vehicles, and reciprocity agreements are often putinto places among state using compatible ETC systems to obtain informationon out-of-state vehicles. Violations processing is covered by legislativeaction which generally is based on tort offense (as opposed to a motorvehicle violation) and is linked to a person’s ability to renew his or herlicense registration if the violation is not paid. It also allows court intervention.Violators generally receive a warning/fine (toll + administrative fee)through the mail containing the picture with the date, time and locationof the violation.Given the difficulty and associated delays ofstopping violating vehicles while they are travelingon barrier-separated facilities, traffic citationsare generally sent by mail to owners ofviolating vehicles. This practice generallyrequires specific state legislation and has beenan effective tool in addressing HOVviolations. 24Pilot ProgramsThere are different enforcement issues whenconsidering pilot projects involving monthlypermits. In such cases enforcement relies onlyon visual identification, with officers searchingfor a decal or placard on the vehicles using the24In Virginia, where citations are sent by mail if anenforcement officer visually documents an HOVoccupancy violation, there has been a ten-foldincrease in the number of citations issued and acorresponding reduction in violations.Figure 23.CameraFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT69

Chapter 6Operational IssuesHOT lane and determining the vehicle occupancyof those not displaying passes. This complicatesthe split-second decision-makingprocess confronting enforcement officers andallows only for random challenges much likelooking for out of date motor vehicle tag registrations.■■■The location were enforcement took place(direction and location);The number of police personnel on duty(members supplied, person hours used);A summary of violations (warnings issued,violation tickets issued, etc.);6.3.2PenaltiesPenalties for violations must be adequate todiscourage the willful violator such thatreliance on dedicated enforcement officers canbe minimized. Penalties on HOT/HOV projectsin the United States vary from $40 to over$310 ($100 plus court costs) for the firstoffense. In California, HOV penalties becomerather steep after the third offense, rising toover $1000 inclusive of court costs.Signs should be posted indicating fines for violationsand that police are enforcing the facility.Empirical evidence suggests that when fines aresufficiently high, observed violations for suchoffenses may be reduced significantly.Performance and MonitoringA systematic monitoring program is requiredto determine compliance levels and provide abasis for fine-tuning HOT operations andenforcement requirements. Funding to supportenforcement activities should include a contractualarrangement for reporting requirementsfrom the enforcement agencies. The data inthese reports would be of great benefit forfuture planning and for identifying resourcerequirements for ongoing enforcement andfuture HOT projects.Helpful performance monitoring informationincludes:■■The method of enforcement (officer, officerwith video, etc.);The time the enforcementcommenced/ended;■■General notes regarding typical response bymotoring public and challenges faced in carryingout this type of enforcement; andThe results from any court actions regardingdispute of HOT/HOV violations.This information can be used to correlate thelevel of police efforts with compliance in a corridorand provides information that can beused to fine-tune enforcement activities.6.4Incident ManagementIncident management is critical on HOT lanes.The need for effective management is two-fold:First, it is essential to maintain premium travelservice conditions on HOT lane facilities, andthis requires quick response and rapid clearancewhen incidents occur.Secondly, given that HOT lanes are likely to beseparated by physical barriers, vehicles may notbe able to navigate around disabled vehicles,introducing the risk that all traffic traveling onthe facility comes to a standstill.Because of these realities, real-time traffic sensingand surveillance equipment should be usedto monitor travel conditions on the HOT lanefacility at all times, with the proper authoritiesnotified whenever there is a severe deteriorationin speeds or traffic service. Incidentsshould be reported to response agencies withinminutes of their occurrence. In addition to theright technology, quick detection also dependsupon observant staff.70 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 6Operational IssuesAccessThe major difference on a HOT lane when anincident occurs is normally the limited accesspoints. The site, depending on the incident(fire, injuries), can often be reached from otherlanes more easily than from the actual HOTlane. Protocols for responding to differenttypes of incidents should be established inadvance, with appropriate training provided toall response personnel. On-scene traffic controlis also critical in maintaining traffic flows onother lanes and allowing tow truck and rescuevehicles to access the actual incident location ifnecessary. Tow trucks and rescue vehicles aretypically brought in from the opposite directionof traffic if the lanes are completelyblocked. Attempts should be made to keep atleast part of the facility open to allow inboundresponse agencies to reach the incidentdepending on the magnitude, type and locationof an incident as well as the physical constraintsof the facility.Plans and ProceduresResponse training should include the criteriafor use, procedures for getting messages posted,and the process for activating and deactivatingmessages. Incident Response Plans andEmergency Procedures including drills must beprepared in concert with all response agenciesto cover various types of incidents includingaccidents, breakdowns, snow/ice control,other routine maintenance, and major occurrences,such as an evacuation or special event.Plans also need to be developed to close HOTfacilities to traffic in the event of certain incidents.6.5MaintenanceHOT lane operations require the maintenanceof the roadway, including the pylons or barriers,signing and markings, and electronic tolldevices and infrastructure. Maintenance activitiesare also likely to include repair, rehabilitationand replacement of equipment, pavement,shoulders, signs, barriers, pylons and markings.Each component requires an assessment ofTypical Incident Response Plan Issues■■■■■■■■■Maximizing response to blocking incidentsEstablishing emergency vehicle alternate access routes when lanes arealtered or closedProviding advanced incident response training for all respondersConducting at least one training exercise to test the incident responseplanProviding the briefing to the media and seek their support for morefrequent traffic reportsMaintaining a liaison role with the key response agencies throughout allphases of constructionDeveloping and maintaining a comprehensive list of all key project personnelincluding emergency numbersIdentifying alternative routesProviding public notifications thru the National Transportation SafetyBoard’s (NTSB) Highway Accident Report (HAR); news media;agency; project or traffic websitesAdditional Construction Period Incident Response Issues■■■■■■■Implementing 24 hour stationary or roving service patrols in the constructionzoneCreating temporary collision investigation/enforcement sites within theconstruction zoneEstablishing the construction zone as an immediate tow areaDeveloping agreements with the construction companies to use theirheavy equipment to assist in clearance of debris from truck accidentsIdentifying landing locations for medical response helicopters near theconstruction zoneOffering presentations to key stakeholders such as the trucking industry,major employers and automobile clubs before construction startsInstalling surveillance throughout the construction area to detect anincident and monitor traffic flowshow often maintenance should be performedand when major replacements or rehabilitationare required so that funding may be reserved.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT71

Chapter 6Operational IssuesIt is also important to consider the initial capitalcosts for equipment, signage and ETCequipment, as well as equipment for snow andice removal in colder climates.If the facility is to be privately owned and operated,then a maintenance fleet may need to beassembled, housed and maintained separatefrom the state DOT, specifically for the HOTlane. Alternatively, a private owner may contractwith a state DOT or public tollroad operatorfor maintenance, in which case the agencymay need to augment its maintenance fleet forthat facility. Even if it is state owned and operated,there is always the potential need foradditional maintenance vehicles and personnel.72 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT LaneExperienceThis chapter provides descriptive case studies ofthe four HOT lane facilities currently operatingin the United States, as well as two recentHOT lane initiatives. Presented in a parallelformat, the cases illustrate the variety thatabounds in the nation’s HOT experience, aswell as many common themes.The cases have been assembled through reviewof project documentation and interviews withassociated state, county and local officials, aswell as with consultants and private concessioncompanies. While they present different pointsof view and offer observations on how andwhy various occurrences came to pass, thecases are intended to be journalistic and nonjudgmental.Most importantly, they offer reallifeillustrations of the different policy andtechnical issues addressed in the earlier chaptersof this document.7.1Houston’s QuickRide System:IH-10 West Corridor “Katy Freeway”and US 290 “Northwest Freeway”BackgroundHouston’s IH 10 Corridor, known commonlyas the Katy Freeway, extends 40 miles from theCentral Business District of Houston west tothe Brazos River (Figure 24). It was constructedfrom 1960 to 1968 to replace the old KatyRoad, when Houston was a much smaller city.Since its construction, explosive growth in privateresidences, corporate offices, and retailcenters along the route have made the IH-10corridor a central artery of western Houston.Designed to carry 79,200 vehicles per day, theKaty Freeway now carries over 207,000 vehiclesper day, and it is considered one of themost congested stretches of freeway in Texas.The Katy also has the highest daily truck volumesof any roadway in the state. Traffic generatedfrom six radial highways, nine employmentcenters, the Port of Houston, andthrough truck traffic are all compressed intothree lanes in each direction. Congestion maybe present for 11 hours or more each day,extending well beyond conventional peakhours, and there is even congestion for longperiods during the weekends. Some estimatesplace the cost of the Katy’s traffic delays tocommuters, residents and businesses at $85million a year.As currently configured, the Katy Freeway hasthree main lanes (or general purpose lanes) andtwo frontage-road lanes for most of its lengthin each direction. Situated in the center of thefreeway is a barrier-separated high-occupancyvehicle/toll(HOT) lane for carpools andbuses, making for a total of 11 through lanes.A single reversible lane, the HOT facility handlesinbound traffic in the morning and outboundtraffic in the evening. The HOT lane,which runs for 13 miles from west of StateHighway 6 to west of Washington Avenue, hasbeen in operation since 1998, when it was convertedfrom the freeway’s original high occupancyvehicle lane dating from 1988. Althoughthe Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT) owns and operates the KatyFreeway, the center QuickRide lane is operatedby the Harris County Metropolitan TransitAuthority (Houston Metro), which operates allHOV lanes in the region. This arrangementadds some institutional complexity to theHOT facility.For a number of reasons, the Katy Freewaymakes for a rich study of HOT lane implementation.First, the QuickRide system offers anexample of a regular HOV lane converted to atolled high-occupancy facility, as well as ofHOT lane operation. Additionally, currentplanning by TxDOT and other Houston transportationagencies for a major reconstructionFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT73

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane ExperienceFigure 24.Katy Freeway andNorthwest FreewayLocation MapBrazos River290Katy FreewayProposedExpansionJerseyVillage●68NorthwestFreewayQuickrideGeorge BushIntercontinentalAirport✈Hardy Toll Road59Houston8●San Felipe3660N 45BrookshireKaty●●90 90 10 1010 Katy Freeway 610Existing359Quickride PasadenaFulshear1093610 ●●8●Simonton288Sugar Land●●MissouriCity8 45596South FreewayGulf Freewayof the Katy Freeway may bring a dramaticexpansion of the center HOT lane. The variousagencies involved in the Katy and the alternativesunder consideration for its expansion providea window into some complex dimensionsof HOT lane planning. Finally, the success ofthe Katy HOT lanes encouraged HoustonMetro to expand the QuickRide system inNovember 2000 to another well traveled corridorin the region, the Northwest Freeway orUS 290.7.1.1The Katy QuickRideHOV Beginnings and ConversionSince the 1980s, escalating travel demand onthe I-10 West in Houston has pushed transportationplanners and engineers continually tofind new solutions to accommodate growingtraffic. In 1984, TxDOT and Houston Metroopened an HOV lane on the Katy Freeway. Asa joint project of Houston Metro and the StateDepartment of Highways and PublicTransportation, the Katy HOV lane was constructedwith support from Federal TransitAdministration (FTA) funds. Its operation wasinitially dedicated for transit. Although it nowoperates as a high occupancy toll lane underHouston Metro’s QuickRide, the lane’s physicalform has not changed. Today, two plusoccupantvehicles may pay to use the reversibleone-lane facility during hours when three-plusrequirements are in effect. Concrete barriersseparate the 13-mile QuickRide lane fromthree outer general purpose lanes in each direction,and there are three intermediate accesspoints.When the Katy HOV lane first began operating,eligibility requirements were at their mostrestrictive. Initially, only buses and authorizedvanpools were allowed to use the lane. Theresultant under-utilization gradually encourageda loosening of the HOV entry rules, andslowly, registered carpools of four or more,then three or more, then two or more wereallowed into the lane. As restrictions wererelaxed, traffic on the facility grew, and morerestrictive carpool rules were eventually reinstatedat certain hours of the commute toreduce traffic on the facility. When congestionin the lane under two-plus HOV operation74 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencebegan to defeat the lane’s travel time advantage,the three-plus carpool restriction wasreinstated.With two-person carpools no longer allowed,the number of persons moved by the lane duringthe peak hour declined 30 percent.Attempting to increase the number of peoplemoved by the HOV lane while also preservingthe facility’s time advantage, Houston Metroand TxDOT launched a value pricing pilot onthe existing 13-mile HOV-lane in January of1998.The QuickRide program, initially funded as anFHWA Priority Corridor Program and designatedas a value pricing pilot, converted theKaty Freeway HOV-lane to a high-occupancytoll lane that uses price and occupancy requirementsto manage traffic service in the lane.The QuickRide SystemUnder the QuickRide system, still in operationby Houston Metro in 2002, buses and threepluscarpools continue to use the Katy HOTlane free of charge at all times, and single-occupantvehicles continue to be prohibited fromthe lane. Two-plus carpools may use the lanewithout charge during the morning andevening rush hours, except during its greatestpeaks–from 6:45 AM to 8 AM and from 5 PMto 6 PM Monday through Friday. During thesetimes, when demand for the facility is greatest,two-person carpools may use the lane for a$2.00 toll; only three-plus carpools use thelane for free.The exclusion of single-occupant vehicles fromthe lane makes the Katy QuickRide one of twoHOT-lane facilities in the U.S. that does notallow single-occupant users if they are willingto pay a toll. The other is Houston’sNorthwest Freeway, also part of the QuickRidesystem. When operated as a regular HOV lane,the Katy lane was at near-gridlock. The decisionby QuickRide operators to disallow singleoccupant drivers to use the lane—even if willingto pay the toll—reflected the corridor’shigh travel demand and its limited capacity(one reversible lane), as well as SOV userestrictions tied to the HOV lane’s originalconstruction financing from the FTA. Theadmission of single-occupant vehicles (SOV) toQuickRide would quickly congest the facility,unless the fee for SOVs were high enough todeter most from using the lane. Operatorsexpected that the number of two-plus carpoolsthat would take advantage of the buy-in opportunitywould still allow the lane to operate atfree flow.QuickRide OperationsSince its inception on the Katy, the QuickRidesystem has used fully-automated toll collection.In fact, the Federal Priority Corridor earmarkused for the project was designed specifically tofund ITS applications. Original project plansfor the Katy included the use of revenue collectiontechnology in the corridor.Windshield-mounted electronic transpondersare issued by Houston Metro, and transpondersissued by the Harris County Toll RoadAuthority (HCRTA) are also accepted at thefacility, provided users enroll in the QuickRideprogram and submit the transponder ID number.The QuickRide application form outlinesthe facility’s operating procedures, applicablefees, required equipment, monthly billingstatements, violations and penalties, and conditionsfor termination of service.Large digital displays at approaches to theQuickRide lane inform drivers whenQuickRide rules are in effect, and overheadreaders deduct the toll from the user’s prepaidaccount. An initial balance of $40 is requiredon each transponder. When the account balancefalls below $10, the user’s credit card ischarged to bring the balance back to $40.Monthly statements reflect all trip costs andcredit card charges. In its first year operatingQuickRide, Houston Metro limited to 600 thenumber of transponders issued to use the facili-FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT75

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencety. As of April 2002, it had issued over 1,500transponders for QuickRide access on both theKaty Freeway and the Northwest FreewayQuickRide lanes. The initial cap on transpondersallowed facility operators to regulate thelimited spare capacity on the HOV laneQuickRide Public OutreachBefore launching the QuickRide program,Houston Metro and TxDOT, along with a privateconsultant, conducted a number of focusgroups to assess public sentiment toward theproposed fee system. Additionally, the publicinformation staffs of both agencies identifiedissues that would be important to addresswhen crafting marketing and public informationmaterials for launching the QuickRideprogram.Rather than create a separate administrativeentity for the QuickRide system, the projectsponsors chose to direct potential users to theMetro carpool matching service. In programbrochures and on the QuickRide website,potential customers are instructed to call theMETRO RideShare Information Line for anapplication.In late December 1997, public advertisementsfor the QuickRide program began to appear inprint and radio media outlets. Outreach effortsalso included distributing press releases anddirect mailing brochures and applications tohouseholds in targeted zip codes.The QuickRide webpage has been anothersource of information for the public. (Seehttp://www.houmetro.harris.tx.us/services/quickride/asp.)The site is simple in comparison towebpages for the privately owned SR-91 andpublicly operated I-15, but it provides necessaryinformation about the facility and its operations.By contrast, the SR-91 website allowspotential users to apply for an account online,and offers current users the ability to manageexisting transponder accounts online. The I-15website provides a downloadable applicationform for its FasTrak program. Applicants to theQuickRide program may download an applicationfrom the QuickRide webpage or may callthe Metro RideShare to request one.7.1.2After Katy Success, QuickRide Expands toUS 290In fall 2000, Houston Metro launchedQuickRide operations on a second HOV facilityin Houston: the Northwest Freeway, or US290, which connects the northwest suburbs ofHouston with downtown, feeding into the 610loop. Like the Katy, the Northwest Freewayhas hosted an HOV lane for over a decade. Asdemand for the facility grew rapidly in the late1990s, Houston Metro studied the possibilityof increasing the occupancy requirements onthe facility and introducing QuickRide operations.These changes were implemented graduallyin 2000, making the Northwest FreewayHouston’s second HOT facility.In 1990, Houston Metro opened an HOV onthe Northwest Freeway. The Northwest laneruns for 13.5-miles and has operated as a onelanebarrier-separated reversible HOV lanesince its inception. Under HOV operations,travel in the Northwest HOV lane was permittedonly for transit, school and private buses,taxis, vanpools and two-plus carpools duringthe peak morning and evening periods. Thelane’s design encourages transit use, as most ofits access points are through transit stations orpark-and-ride lots. Through the 1990s, laneuse expanded, and by 1998, the facility served6,400 vehicles and 16,200 passengers daily.From September 1997 to April 1999, the lanewitnessed a 37% increase in the number ofpeak hour vehicles. This rapid increase, particularlyduring the AM peak, caused operations todeteriorate. Average speeds in the NorthwestHOV-lane slowed to between 20 and 30 mphin the AM peak and the level-of-service sunkto “F.”76 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane ExperienceCrowded HOV conditions also impacted busesand bus passengers using the facility. Busesserving the Northwest’s park-and-ride facilitiesexperienced on average 15-minutes of delay aswell as increased operating expenses.Additionally, the large number of cars exitingthe HOV facility at its terminus at theNorthwest Transit Center negatively impactedthe efficiency of bus movements and bus transfersthat take place there. Commuters whoarrive at park-and-rides along the facility anduse buses on the Northwest HOV lane toreach downtown were particularly distressed.Commuter complaints to Metro noted deterioratingoperations, delays, reliability problems,and lateness.As Houston Metro considered how to addressthe situation, the successful three-plus HOVoperation on the Katy stood out as a possiblesolution. Before and after studies of the Katyshowed that its HOT lane application had thefollowing positive results:■■■■It increased the number of three-plus carpoolsduring the peak;It redistributed two-plus carpools to beforeand after the peak hour;It increased average traffic speeds andimproved the Katy HOV’s level of service;andIt transported the same number of passengersmore efficiently.Metro engineers concluded that implementationof three-plus carpool requirements wouldrestore travel time benefits on the NorthwestHOV-lane during the AM peak, when crowdingwas most problematic. The step was viewedas necessary if Metro was to maintain its policyof operating HOV-lanes at 50 mph or above.TxDOT approved the proposal, and in early2000, Metro changed occupancy requirementson the Northwest HOV from two-plus tothree-plus carpools only during the morningrush. The facility experienced a noticeable dropin usage, alleviating crowding and restoringlevels of service for transit users.In November 2000, high occupancy toll operationswere launched on the NorthwestFreeway. While three-plus operations in theAM peak had relieved the significant congestionproblems, there was now some sparecapacity on the lane. As with the Katy HOTlane, the extra capacity was opened to payingtwo-plus carpools, and it continues to operateon this basis. QuickRide allows paying twopluscarpools to use the lane only in the morningpeak when three-plus occupancy requirementsare in effect. From 6:45AM to 8:00AM,when the facility serves inbound traffic, threeplusoccupant vehicle may use the lane for free,but two-plus vehicles must pay $2.00 to usethe lane. Single-occupant vehicles are neverallowed on the Northwest’s QuickRide lane,making its occupancy strategy identical to theKaty’s. QuickRide transponders are accepted atboth the Katy and Northwest high occupancytoll facilities. As of April 2002, over 1,500transponders were in circulation for use on thetwo facilities, and an average of 160 users traversedthe two facilities each day.7.1.3An Expanded Vision for Katy HOT lanesThe QuickRide Program in place on the KatyFreeway and the Northwest Freeway offers anotable example of HOV operations expandedto incorporate HOT lane use. Moreover, theKaty and Northwest HOT lanes are unique forprohibiting the entry of single-occupant vehicles,even on a fee per trip basis. While the evolutionof the QuickRide system is a useful casestudy in itself, the number of paying users thatthese two facilities could accommodate is limited.Expansion plans for the Katy Freeway arecurrently under consideration and could significantlyincrease the scale and scope of HOTlane operations in the Katy Corridor. As theycurrently evolve, these plans also provideinsight into some aspects of HOT lane planningand implementation.Expansion Plans for the Katy FreewayIn 1995, TxDOT initiated a Major InvestmentFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT77

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane ExperienceStudy (MIS) of the Katy Freeway corridor.Following federal requirements for major transportationinvestments, the MIS was intendedto identify present and future mobility needs inthe corridor, evaluate alternatives for transportationimprovements and investments, andassess local environmental and community concerns.The study identified seven alternativesthat could be pursued to improve the freeway,ranging from a no-build option to the additionof fixed-guideway transit with improved transitaccess and feeder routes. The MIS process thenexamined each alternative for engineering feasibility,transportation impacts, environmentalconsequences and financial feasibility, and ultimatelypresented a locally preferred alternative.The preferred alternative would add oneHOV-lane from downtown Houston to IH-610 and from SH-6 to Katy, and would havetwo special use or managed lanes in each directionbetween IH-610 and SH-6, one generalpurpose lane in each direction between IH-610and Katy, and auxiliary lanes and frontageroads at major intersections. This schemewould expand the Katy’s current 11 lanes to18 lanes, with a total of four general use lanesin each direction, two managed lanes (withoutdefining what type of managed lane) in eachdirection, and three lanes on frontage roads ineach direction. In 1995, TxDOT estimated theplan would cost roughly $1.1 billion, and revenuefrom the special use lanes would total$225 million over 25 years. Constructionwould begin in 2003 and continue for 10years, and a combination of Federal and Statefunds gathered primarily from fuel taxes wouldfinance the construction.One aspect of the TxDOT proposal that is ofparticular interest to HOT lane planning is thefact that the operation of the four managedlanes is left unspecified. In fact, according toTxDOT, the managed lane/special use conceptwas used as a placeholder when developing thepreferred alternative, and the TxDOT has contractedwith the Texas Transportation Institute(TTI) to study alternative operational strategiesfor those lanes. They could, for instance, beused as dedicated truck lanes or as toll lanes.After the MIS results and a follow up environmentalimpact study (EIS) were sent to theFHWA for a record of decision, planning forthe Katy Freeway corridor took an unexpectedturn. In March 2001, the Harris County TollRoad Authority (HCTRA) proposed to assumeresponsibility for the four managed lanes andto construct them as a regular toll road.HCTRA’s offer would create a HCTRA sponsoredtollway in the Katy Freeway median, andadd to the two toll facilities in Harris Countyalready operated by the authority.As the traditional toll road operator in the area,HCTRA viewed the planned Katy expansion asan opportunity to add a facility to its operations.The authority would operate the twomanaged lanes in each direction as toll lanes.HCTRA also offered to provide $250 millionin revenue bonds backed by toll revenue fromits existing facilities to finance construction ofthe Katy special use lanes. HCTRA also offeredTxDOT another $250 million as a loan to bepaid back over 10 years; this loan would freeother TxDOT funds for spending on otherprojects in the Houston District.Federal review is needed on two counts for theHCTRA plan: (1) for the environmentalimpacts and (2) for the proposed tolling strategy.First, a supplemental EIS may be requiredfor the HCTRA plan. Although the FHWAhad issued a favorable record of decision inFebruary 2002 on the Katy EIS, HCTRA’sproposal to build and operate the four centerlanes as a tollway was announced after the EISwas submitted to federal authorities. If thepotential environmental impacts of HCTRA’soperating plan for the four lanes differ significantlyfrom those outlined in the original EIS,FHWA may require a supplemental EIS. Thiscould lengthen the environmental reviewprocess and could alter the consensus crafted78 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experienceon the original expansion plan. As of June2002, FHWA was determining whether a supplementalEIS was needed. Second, the FHWAwill have to approve tolling on the expandedfacility—not just for two-plus carpools, but forsingle occupant vehicles as well. As discussedbelow, TxDOT and HCTRA have soughtapproval for the plan through the Value PricingPilot Program.7.1.4Lessons LearnedPublic OutreachMost institutional representatives interviewedfor this case study report that a broad consensusfavors reconstruction of the freeway. Thecorridor’s extreme congestion and poor roadconditions have helped to build support forreconstruction, and the public outreach processfollowed during the major investment studyalso worked to identify a solution with broadpublic support.Aiming to provide public input and oversightinto the study, the MIS process involved yearsof discussion, planning, and public meetingswith businesses, community members andelected officials. A formal Steering Committeefor the study included representatives fromTxDOT, the City of Houston, the Houston-Galveston Area Council, FTA and FHWA,Houston METRO (the Metropolitan TransitAuthority of Harris County), and the TexasNatural Resource Conservation Commission.A Conceptual Advisory Group facilitated inputfrom other neighboring political jurisdictions,business associations, and community groups.During the study period, a total of 14 publicmeetings were held and nearly 1400 individualsparticipated. Public concerns raised duringthe study addressed operational issues on theexisting HOV-lane, including concerns aboutthe limited access points to the QuickRide laneand its limited ability to serve more drivers orto accommodate increasingly two-way travel.Some expressed the need for greater connectivitybetween the Katy and other HOV facilities.Local elected officials, including Congressionalrepresentatives, the County Judge, and thearea’s representative to the three-seat TexasTransportation Commission, have largelyvoiced approval of the expansion plan. Officialshave emphasized the financial advantages tousing HCTRA funds to construct toll lanes onthe Katy. The public has not had a chance toformally comment on the toll proposal.Institutional IssuesThe number of public agencies with an interestin the Katy Freeway makes for complex institutionalconsiderations in planning for HOTlanes in the corridor. Although the KatyFreeway itself is owned and operated byTxDOT, FTA funds were used to construct itsmedian HOV lane, reserving the lane for transitand carpools. Moreover, since its inception,the center HOV lane has been operated by theHouston Metro, a transit agency, under acooperative agreement between Metro andTxDOT known as the Transitways MasterOperations and Maintenance Agreement.When Metro has contemplated changing occupancyrequirements or levying tolls for twoplususers on the Katy (or on the NorthwestFreeway HOV for that matter), TxDOT hashad to approve the measure. Additionally,under the Katy’s current configuration, Metrocannot allow SOVs on the QuickRide facilitybecause the FTA’s original investment in thelane.Given current proposals for the Katy’s reconstructionand expansion, the future of HOTlanes on the freeway involves additional institutionalconsiderations. For one, HCTRA’s offerof $250 million to finance construction and tooperate Katy toll lanes has considerable appealto local authorities. Financing from HCTRAwould allow the project to be built sooner andwould free funding formerly designated for theKaty for use on other projects in the region.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT79

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane ExperienceSecond, because HCTRA’s proposal wouldallow tolling of SOVs on the Katy managedlanes and because the Katy is an interstate, theplan requires FHWA approval. As outlined inthe 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the21st Century (TEA-21), the FHWA has thepower to approve proposals to test the feasibilityof new tolls on existing Interstate highways.HCTRA and TxDOT did seek FHWAapproval for construction and operation of fourtoll lanes within the Katy; however, FHWAdeclined the request to toll only the four middlelanes on the interstate. FHWA interpretedthe TEA-21 provision as giving it discretionover tolling proposals for interstate sections intheir entirety, not just for the four center lanes.HCTRA and TxDOT have subsequentlysought and won FHWA approval for the proposalunder the Value Pricing Pilot Program.In anticipation of the tolling of the four managedlanes, the two agencies requested achange in the Value Pricing Pilot Programalready in place on the Katy. Review of thisrequest by the FHWA’s Division Administratorhas indicated that the current Value PricingPilot Program approval for the Houston areacovers the changes anticipated by TxDOT andHCTRA to the Katy Freeway.A third issue arises because FTA has a stake inthe Katy: HCTRA and the FTA must negotiatea plan for transit access to the proposedexpanded facility. For instance, will the hoursfor HOT operations be expanded? Will busesbe able to use the facility for deadheading?What would the implications be if the numberof buses on the facility increased significantly?Finally, for the HCTRA proposal to move forward,a host of issues would have to beaddressed collectively by TxDOT, HCTRA andthe FHWA. FHWA has advised TxDOT andHCTRA to develop a Cooperative Agreementthat would implement the project, detail itsvariable tolling strategy, discuss what parameterswould govern the expenditure of Katy tollrevenues, outline data collection efforts for theValue Pricing program, and address the needto collect tolls until the bonds are retired.7.2SR 91 Express LanesBackgroundCalifornia’s 91 Express LanesTM is a toll facilityproviding two lanes in each directionbetween the SR 91/55 junction in Anaheimand the Orange/Riverside County Line. TheLanes run for approximately 10 miles in themedian of SR 91 and access points to theExpress Lanes are provided only at each end ofthe facility (Figure 25). The availability of additionalpublicly owned right-of-way in this supercongested corridor played a large role in thefacility’s creation; the available ROW made itpossible to provide two travel lanes in eachdirection.The facility is fully automated and users mustposses an electronic transponder to use it.Although the project is a toll facility, the 91Express Lanes function similar to a HOT lanefacility in that carpools are encouraged vialower toll rates; vehicles with 3 or more passengersmay use the facility at a 50 percent discount.The SR 91 corridor in which the Lanes are situatedis one of the most heavily traveled routesin Orange County, California, and one of themost highly congested freeway corridors inCalifornia. On a typical day, roughly 250,000vehicles use the route, and before the 91Express Lanes opened, peak period delaysbetween 20 and 40 minutes were common.7.2.1The Planning ProcessLaunched in December 1995, the facility notonly was a pioneer application of variable pricingin the U.S., but it also was funded onlythrough private investments, the first projectborn from California’s AB 680 legislation80 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane ExperienceEast LosAngeles 15 215 10 10SAN BERNARDINO CO.RIVERSIDE CO.60 5 LOS ANGELES CO.ORANGE CO. 15LOS ANGELES CO.SAN BERNARDINO CO.91Riverside60Figure 25.SR 91 Express LanesLocation Map9157SAN BERNARDINO CO.ORANGE CO.Yorba Linda911LongBeachAhaheim55Orange261SR 91ExpressLanesCoronaHungtingtonBeach55133241IrvineP acific OceanNewport BeachORANGE CO.RIVERSIDE CO.1NRIVERSIDE CO.SAN DIEGO CO.passed in 1989. Because the project has beenin operation for over six years, valuable usagedata on the facility have been collected; thesedata have enabled researchers to evaluate manyaspects of the Lanes’ operation and usage. Forthese reasons, the 91 Express Lanes projectprovides several insights into the planning andoperation of high occupancy toll lanes.When planning for the toll lanes began, theneed for improvements in the highly congestedSR 91 corridor had been evident for manyyears. Public funding was unavailable andwould possibly not materialize in the comingyears. California legislation AB 680, as well asinnovative thinking from elected officials, planners,and the private sector, helped to makeanother solution and alternative fundingpossible.In 1989, AB 680 authorized the CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans) toenter into agreements with private entities forthe construction by private entities of fourtransportation demonstration projects, includingat least one in Northern California and onein Southern California. The legislation authorizedCaltrans to lease rights-of-way, grant easements,and issue permits to enable private entitiesto construct transportation facilities supplementingexisting state-owned transportationfacilities. The law also allowed Caltrans to leasethose facilities to the private entities for up to35 years. The legislation allowed private concessionairesto identify specific projects where aprivate facility would perform favorably. This isthe path pursued for the 91 Express Lanes.The $134 million 91 Express Lanes facility wasone of the four public-private partnershipsmade possible by AB 680. It was built entirelywith private funds through the CaliforniaPrivate Transportation Company (CPTC), aconcession company comprised of Peter KiewitFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT81

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experience& Sons, Cofiroute Corporation, and GraniteConstruction, Inc. No significant public fundswere used to build or implement the facility.The California Private TransportationCompany and the State of California signed a35-year franchise agreement under which theCPTC would construct and operate the facilityon the leased median right-of-way.7.2.2Political Considerations and PublicOutreachOne prominent factor contributing to the successfulimplementation of the 91 Express Laneswas the emphasis throughout the planningprocess on public involvement. During theevaluation and planning of any complex transportationproject, planners and agency sponsorshave many opportunities to drop the proposalfrom consideration. The absence of communitysupport is often a major reason leadingplanners to abandon a potentially worthwhileproposal. In the case of SR 91, project sponsorsclearly understood that public acceptancewas critical if the effort to create a new transportationoption in Southern California was tosucceed. As the first privately owned and variablytolled high-occupancy vehicle facility, the91 Express Lanes would depend on publicapproval and a supportive clientele.Unlike the modest outreach efforts of theSonoma 101 study discussed later in this chapter,the SR 91 example is notable for its directefforts to assess public acceptance and to buildpublic support for the plan early. From the initialplanning stages through the operationalphase of the project, the CPTC has continuedto communicate with and seek input from thepublic and its client base.When variable tolling strategies were first consideredfor the corridor, preliminary studiesassessed travelers’ reactions to variable pricing.Comprehensive surveys of travelers and businesseswere conducted, and a number of focusgroups were convened. Project planners polledfor public acceptance of the project, as well asthe projected usage of a HOT lane facility andthe willingness to pay for use of it. In fact,project sponsors have suggested that assessmentsof public support and willingness to paywere highly important factors in the decisionto implement the project, as such polls helpedassess the facility’s potential for profitability.The planning process for the SR 91 facility alsoinvolved broad representation from community,political, government and industry interests.The stakeholders included in the process werethe County Board of Supervisors, FHWA,Environmental Defense, the ReasonFoundation, the Orange County and RiversideCounty Transportation Commissions, Caltrans,state legislators, local mayors and council representatives,and the International Bridge,Tunnel and Turnpike Association. A projectnewsletter produced throughout planningstages kept the public informed of SR 91 plansand progress.Project sponsors have also noted that severallocal and state officials championed the project;the involvement of public figures willing tosupport the project gave the HOT lane plan adistinct advantage.Public outreach remained a critical componentduring the project start up phase as well. Oncethe decision was made to launch the HOT lanefacility, project sponsors reached out to nationalmedia and public policy makers. Press releases,speaker’s bureau engagements, and otherpublic presentations were used to communicatethe news of the lanes. Newsletters, radio advertisements,direct mail, and signage along theSR 91 route publicized the coming facility topotential users of the Express Lanes.Since the lanes opened, the facility operatorshave surveyed customers every year to determinecustomer satisfaction and areas for potentialservice improvements. Also, every fewyears, non-customers have been surveyed to82 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experienceidentify the incentives needed for them to usethe 91 Express Lanes in the future.Early in the lanes’ operation, regular mailingsto customers and potential users reported anynews about the facility, as well as any operationalchanges or adjustments to the toll structure.Now, service updates are provided tousers via the facility’s website atwww.91expresslanes.com, which is also a onestopinformation center for the 91 ExpressLanes. The website provides general informationabout the facility, allows drivers to applyfor a 91 Express Lanes account and transpondersonline, supplies links to live traffic reports,and also enables pass holders to manage theiraccounts online. The facility’s operators alsouse electronic mail to send customers statements,policy updates, alerts and other importantinformation from the 91 Express Lanes.Account holders can sign up for email noticesthrough the website.7.2.3Current OperationsSince the 91 Express Lanes were opened in late1995, the lanes’ operational and tolling structureshave evolved in response to changingtraffic conditions in the corridor and to thesponsor’s financial expectations. As operator ofthe system, the CPTC sets the toll rates, anduses the tolls to maintain an optimal level ofservice and revenue for the facility. Because the91 Express Lanes is a fully automated toll facility,vehicles traveling on the facility must have avalid account and an electronic transponder(FasTrak Transponder) mounted on thevehicle.The 91 Express Lanes offer three types of useraccounts, each designed to accommodate customersbased on how often they intend to usethe facility. The Convenience Plan is designedfor infrequent users, the Standard Plan is formotorists who use the toll lanes between 2 and25 times per month, and the 91 Express Clubplan is for frequent users. Monthly paymentminimums and toll discounts vary with eachplan. The 91 Express Lanes also offers specialdiscounts for opening a new account withselected credit cards and for referring othercustomers. In addition, transponder holders areeligible for discounts at several local tourist,recreational and shopping venues. These useroptions demonstrate the facility’s efforts tomeet customers’ individual needs as closely aspossible.While its original toll structure was successful,the CPTC has adjusted its tolls several times tooptimize traffic service and revenue potentialon the facility. The first toll increase came inJanuary 1997 and three additional increaseshave followed. Whereas previously a single tollhad applied for the entirety of the peak periods,in September 1997, tolls were adjustedhour by hour during the morning and eveningrush hours. Additionally, in January 1998 theoriginal provision that HOV 3+ (carpools of 3or more persons) could travel for free in theExpress Lanes was changed, and HOV 3+vehicles were thereafter required to pay 50 percentof the basic toll.Discounted tolls are offered not only to 3+ carpools,but also to zero emission vehicles,motorcycles, and vehicles with disability or veteranlicense plates. All other vehicles pay theregular tolls.As of June 2002, tolls on the facility variedfrom $1.00 to $4.75 depending on the time ofday and the day of week. The highest toll of$4.75 applies Monday through Friday from 5to 6 PM eastbound (peak direction), whendemand on the roadway is at its height. OnWednesday and Thursday, the $4.75 toll beginsat 4PM and on Fridays, at 3PM. This suggeststhat the peak evening period expands as theweek draws closer to its end. For the AM westboundpeak, a high of $3.60 is chargedMonday through Thursday from 7 to 8 AM(See Tables 7 and 8). In addition to reflectinghigher demand during the peak commutingFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT83

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane ExperienceTable 7.91 Express Lanes—Westbound Toll Schedule—November 2001Midnight1 am2 am3 am4 am5 am6 am7 am8 am9 am10 am11 amNoon1 pm2 pm3 pm4 pm5 pm6 pm7 pm8 pm9 pm10 pm11 pm1.452.05hours, tolls are also structured to reflect seasonalperiods and seasonal trends in traveldemand. The facility uses a simple tolling system,with all vehicles using the same entry andexit points. Tolls vary only by time of day andnot by the length of trip on the facility, as alltrips are the same length. While the tolls arenot dynamic—i.e., they do not fluctuate inreal-time based on real-time travel conditions—the CPTC regularly evaluates travel patternsand adjusts the toll structure accordingly.Overhead messages at each entrance to theExpress Lanes show the current toll amount,so drivers can decide whether they wish to paythe current toll to speed up their trip.Printed in Tables 7 and 8, the eastbound andwestbound toll schedules illustrate how variabletolls are used to regulate demand for the roadwayduring peak travel periods.Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat2.302.452.051.001.903.203.303.603.302.651.701.003.103.203.503.202.052.401.701.451.702.452.302.452.05User ProfilesBy the end of 1999, about 124,000 transpondershad been issued by the CPTC for use ofthe 91 Express Lanes. Additionally, public tollroad authorities in Orange County had by thesame date issued 240,000 transponders thatcould be used on the public facilities as well asthe SR 91 HOT lanes. Weekday two-way trafficon the SR 91 Lanes has averaged roughlybetween 25,000 and 35,000 vehicles, indicatingthat a small portion of SR 91 registeredusers actually use the Lanes on a given weekday.As with other HOT facilities, customersuse the Lanes selectively.Recent evaluations of the 91 Express Lanesalso show that certain travelers are more willingto use the tolled facility. Females, particularlywomen aged 30 to 50, are more likely thanother groups to choose a toll road.Additionally, other characteristics appear toaffect a driver’s willingness to acquire atransponder to use the facility. Travelers withhigh incomes and higher education and whoare middle aged and are commuters are morelikely to acquire a FasTrak transponder.One of the most important selling factors tousers is the reliability of traffic conditions in theExpress Lanes. Users value the security thatthey are unlikely to experience congestion inthe Lanes and that any traffic incidents will beaddressed quickly and cleared.7.2.4Institutional IssuesSince the launching of the 91 Express Lanesproject, the institutional underpinnings of thefacility have witnessed some challenges andchanges. In fact, as of spring 2002, arrangementswere being made for transfer of ownershipof the lanes to a public agency. Althoughsome of these issues have arisen several yearsinto the lanes’ operation, they offer insightsthat may be useful to projects elsewhere.84 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane ExperienceFirst, the non-compete clause that was criticalto the lanes’ potential for profitability became asticky issue. As part of the agreement struckwith Caltrans when CPTC initially agreed tofinance and construct the toll lanes, Caltransagreed to non-compete provisions by which itpromised not to make improvements or addcapacity to the existing general-purpose laneson SR 91 without consulting with CPTC.Such improvements in the general-purposelanes would harm CPTC’s ability to recoupinvestment in the tolled lanes, and thus thenon-compete provisions were a primary way tosafeguard CPTC’s interest in the ExpressLanes. This non-compete agreement provedextremely contentious once it was used tothwart other capacity improvements in thecorridor.In 1999, Caltrans moved to add general purposelanes in strategic locations on SR 91 toimprove on and off ramp movements. Themeasures were viewed as necessary to addresscongestion in the SR 91 general use lanes.Discussions between CPTC and Caltrans aboutthe need for and impact of the project failed,and CPTC sued to stop the plans. In a legalsettlement, Caltrans withdrew the plans. Thestrife between the two institutions made explicitCPTC’s dependence on congested generalpurpose lanes to maintain high usership of thetoll lanes, and the lawsuit may have damagedCPTC’s public image. Criticism was especiallyheavy from Riverside County, where most ofthe road’s users live, as Riverside commutersresented the high tolls and the state’s inabilityto address congestion in the corridor. In fact,Riverside County later sued to nullify CPTC’scontract to operate the Express Lanes, arguingthat the agreement was an unconstitutional giftof public assets.Midnight1 am2 am3 am4 am5 am6 am7 am8 am9 am10 am11 amNoon1 pm2 pm3 pm4 pm5 pm6 pm7 pm8 pm9 pm10 pm11 pmSun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat1.352.052.402.053.503.504.252.253.253.652.501.701.001.703.751.00Secondly, when CPTC viewed refinancing asnecessary for its financial health, the companywas unable to win support for the strategy pursued.CPTC attempted to transfer ownershipof the 91 Express Lanes to a non-profit organizationcalled NewTrac in order to capitalize onbetter financing terms, and this was the objectof criticism. NewTrac (a non-profit 501 c (3)corporation founded by a local group of independentbusinessmen) and CPTC had been innegotiations for NewTrac to purchase the lanesin December of 1999. The sale of the facilityto a non-profit company would enable the newowners to reissue debt with tax-exempt bondswhile the higher-interest bonds issued privatelyfor construction of the facility were retired.NewTrac representatives projected that thetransfer of the 91 Express Lanes from for-profitto non-profit ownership would generate $400million to $500 million in surplus over thenext 30 years of operation and that those fundswould be returned to the public in the form ofimprovements to roads in the area. However,several aspects of the deal, including tiesbetween CPTC and buyer NewTrac and theuse of state sponsored bonds to purchase the3.754.752.503.353.953.552.252.503.904.253.953.552.251.702.052.402.051.70Table 8.91 Express Lanes—Eastbound Toll Schedule—November 2001FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT85

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane ExperienceLanes, initiated concerns among state and localofficials who had traditionally opposed theproject. Ultimately, the California state treasurerblocked the deal.Finally, in April 2002, the Orange CountyTransportation Authority (OCTA) offered topurchase the 91 Express Lanes Toll Road andthe operational franchise agreement fromCPTC. OCTA first began considering a possiblepurchase of the Lanes in fall 2001, when itschairman requested OCTA staff to investigateways to improve congestion in the 91 corridor,including a possible purchase of the Lanes.Several months later, OCTA entered into formalnegotiations with CPTC to purchase thefacility. While the sale will not be completeuntil the California state legislature grantsapproval to OCTA to levy tolls, OCTA hasagreed to pay $207.5 million for the Lanes.This planned transfer of ownership from a privateto a public entity emphasizes some of theinstitutional issues that have been stickingpoints for CPTC. Purchase of the lanes byOCTA would negate the unpopular non-competeclause, allowing improvements in the generalpurpose lanes on the 91 Freeway.Moreover, not obliged as is CPTC to returnprofits, OCTA says it will adjust SR 91 tollrates to maximize throughput on the facilityinstead of profits. OCTA will also considerallowing three-plus carpools to use the facilityfor free once again. These proposed changespoint to the difficulty faced by CPTC in tryingto operate a HOT facility in a way that simultaneouslymet regional mobility needs and alsohit private financial goals. OCTA has even suggestedthat tolls may be eliminated at the endof the franchise agreement in 2030 or sooner,if the agency receives outside funds to pay offremaining debt on the facility.7.2.5Lessons LearnedThe institutional issues involving non-competeclauses, private ownership, and the sale of afacility by its original, private operator loomlarge in this case. The political difficulties thatlie therein may be instructive.First, operating a HOT facility presents its ownchallenges when the facility is owned and operatedby a private entity ultimately interested inreturning a profit. In this case, public acceptanceof the facility wavered in response to legalwrangling with Caltrans and with RiversideCounty. The non-compete clause that was necessaryto protect CPTC’s investment alsostirred public resentment when it restrictedCaltrans’ ability to plan and implement capacityimprovements on SR 91. OCTA officials areresponding to precisely this conflict in movingto acquire the toll lanes.Second, fostering public understanding andacceptance of the proposed transfer of ownershipto the non-profit NewTrac proved difficult.The complexity of the financial advantagesmay have made it difficult to convey to thepublic the motivation behind CPTC’s decisionto pursue that option. This reinforces the challengesinvolved when the private sector provideswhat has traditionally been accepted as apublic good supplied by the government.A third lesson to emphasize for future projectsis that tolling structures must evolve as demandfor the facility evolves over time. For example,although the 91 Express Lanes initially allowedHOV 3+ carpools to travel for free, this policywas adjusted after a few years. The decision tocharge carpools 50 percent of the toll enabledfacility operators to manage demand for theLanes while also meeting revenue needs.Additionally, tolls on the facility have beenadjusted several times since its opening. AHOT facility uses price to help distributedemand for the facility over time.Finally, the success of the 91 Express Lanesdepends on congestion in the general purposelanes and on a toll structure that regulatesdemand so that the facility can always offer a86 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencetime savings. These operational parameters areunlike those for traditional highways, and additionalpublic education may be needed toexplain them.7.3San Diego I-15 CorridorBackgroundCurrently operated under the FasTrak Programof the San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG), the region’s metropolitan planningorganization, the high occupancy tolllanes on I-15 have their origin in an HOVfacility that first opened in 1988. The two laneswere constructed with Federal TransitAdministration dollars in the median of an 8-mile stretch of Interstate 15, extending roughlyfrom the juncture of I-15 and SR 56 to thenorth and I-15 and SR 163 to the south(Figure 26). Originally intended to attract carpoolingcommuters heading to downtown SanDiego from points north, the HOV lanes wereunderutilized. To increase usage of the lanesand to supply funding for transit improvementsin the I-15 corridor, SANDAG proposed convertingthe lanes to a HOT facility under thefederal Value pricing Pilot Program. The HOVlanes were opened to paying solo drivers inDecember 1996. Project implementation wasstructured in two phases, and the use of tollcollection technologies on the facility hasevolved over time. The number of paying solodrivers has also increased over time. Today, theI-15 HOT facility uses a dynamic, real-timetolling structure, and toll revenue collected onthe facility is used for transit service in the corridorincluding the Inland Breeze peak-periodexpress bus.7.3.1The Planning ProcessUnder the program’s first phase, calledExpressPass, users were issued a vehicle permitwhich allowed unlimited use of the HOVlanes. At first, only 500 monthly permits weresold, priced at $50 each. SANDAG issued 200more permits in February1997 and one monthlater raised the permitprice to $70. In June of1997, transponders wereintroduced on the facility.Whereas visual inspectionwas required previouslyto determine whether avehicle had the requiredwindow decal permits,transponders allowed forelectronic enforcement ofpermit requirements. Thetransponders also facilitatedthe collection ofdata about usage of theHOT lanes.In Phase II of the project,begun in March1998, variably priced pertriptolls replaced the flatmonthly fee. By identifyingthe project as aFasTrak facility, users 5 56DelMar805163SanDiegoCoronadofrom other FasTrak toll facilities in the statecould also use I-15. Additionally, Phase IIopened I-15’s FasTrak program to unlimitedmembership. The lanes continue to operate inthis fashion today. On normal commute days,the toll ranges between $0.50 to $4.00,depending on current traffic conditions; however,tolls may be raised up to $8.00 in theevent of severe traffic congestion. To maintainfree-flow on the FasTrak lanes at all times, tollrates are adjusted every 6 minutes in responseto real-time traffic volumes. The actual toll atany given time is posted on the roadside signsto inform drivers of the current price for usingthe lanes. To preserve the carpooling incentivesthat existed with the original HOV lanes, carpoolsand other vehicles with two or moreoccupants may always use the FasTrak lanes forfree. The lanes operate only during peak hoursin the direction of the commute. From 5:30AM to 11 AM, all vehicles in the HOT lanesNTo OceansideImperialBeach 15PowayI-15 FasTrak 5 8P acific Ocean15 580552SanteeChulaVistaMEXICOFigure 26.I-15 FasTrak Location MapFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT87

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencetravel southbound; from 11:30 AM to 7:30PM, all vehicles travel northbound.Electronic signs at the entrance to the HOTlanes notify motorists of the current toll as theyapproach the toll lanes. Motorists enter theHOT lanes at normal highway speeds. Toll collectionoccurs when the motorist travelsthrough the tolling zone, where overheadantennas scan the windshield-mountedtransponder and automatically deduct the postedtoll from the motorist’s pre-paid account.7.3.2Political Considerations and PublicOutreachLike the SR 91 Express Lanes which camebefore it, the I-15 HOT lane initiative alsoincluded early and aggressive efforts to assesspublic opinion and potential usage of the lanesbefore the facility was launched. Additionally,the implementing agency SANDAG also haspaid close attention to marketing issuesthroughout project implementation and operationalphases.As a first step, SANDAG contracted with aconsultant to collect baseline market surveydata. Commuters in the I-15 corridor werequeried in focus groups, telephone surveys,and intercept surveys on their attitudes towardvariable tolling and traveling in the corridor.The findings from these pre-project studiesformed the basis of strategies for pricing andfor customer communications. Second, preparationfor the first announcement of the projectto the press in November 1996 involved significantpreliminary planning; SANDAG workedwith consultants to develop a project identityand background materials, as well as to formulatea promotion plan for Phase I of the project.A newsletter, the I-15 Express News, wasused to introduce the ExpressPass Program aswell as to provide updates about the facility astoll operations evolved. Town hall meetingswere also held for communities in the corridorto publicize project. To prepare for Phase II,when the facility transitioned from a monthlypass and to per trip tolls, SANDAG used radioadvertisements and a name-the-bus contest toraise public awareness of the coming changes.The SANDAG I-15 FasTrak Online websiteprovides full documentation of the supportingstudies that were used to formulate tollingschedules, marketing plans and promotionalmaterials. The reports are part of the I-15Value pricing Project Monitoring andEvaluation Services and most are available inpdf format. This online library, found athttp://argo.sandag.org/fastrak/library.html,also contains downloadable reports on trafficand operations issues during the project’shistory.Political ChampionsThe evolution of the I-15 HOT facility projectdemonstrates the important role that a politicalchampion can play. The elected official whoshepherded the I-15 HOT lane proposalthrough the SANDAG Board of Directorsremained an important figure to secure neededsupport and legislation at the state level.The origins of I-15’s HOT facility lay inSANDAG efforts in the early 1990s to developair quality control plans. A local elected official(who also served as a SANDAG board member)was concerned with the lack of transit andhad proposed construction of a trolley in the I-15 corridor. The existing HOV lanes wereunderutilized at the time, in part because oflimited entry possibilities, and the I-15 generalpurpose lanes were often congested duringpeak periods. Aware of the Value pricing PilotProgram (now called the Value Pricing PilotProgram) created by ISTEA in 1991, theSANDAG staff proposed selling the HOVfacility’s excess capacity and using the funds tosupport the transit service desired in the corridor.Shepherded by the supportive boardmember, the SANDAG board passed a resolutionin May 1991 to pursue a Value PricingDemonstration. The project would toll single-88 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experienceoccupant vehicles for use of the I-15 HOVlanes and use the toll revenue for transit servicein the corridor.Although SANDAG’s initial grant applicationto the Value Pricing Pilot Program was deniedin 1993, SANDAG won federal approval and a$7.96 million grant in January 1995, after theFHWA revised the eligibility criteria to includeHOT lane projects. In spite of the federalgreen light for the project, state enabling legislationwas needed to allow the HOV lane conversionat the center of the SANDAG plan.(California state law stipulates that only 2+ personcarpools are permitted in HOV lanes.)The same elected official who championed theproject on the SANDAG board also played akey role in moving the project past the statelevel hurdles. After moving to a position in theState Assembly, the official sponsored the originalenabling legislation for the HOT facility.Passed in 1993, Assembly Bill 713 authorizeda four-year demonstration project from 1994through 1998. The statute also required thatthe lanes maintain a particular level of servicefor HOV users, and that project revenues beused for transit service and HOV facilityimprovements in the I-15 corridor. When thedemonstration project was due to sunset in1998, the same elected official was an importantadvocate for its extension through January2000 via AB 267. Since then, the legislationhas gone through other rounds of sunset datesand extensions, and each time supporters inthe state assembly and senate have been importantbackers.7.3.3Lessons LearnedAs noted above, the I-15 FasTrak Online websiteprovides access to numerous studies,reports and evaluations completed during thedevelopment of the I-15 HOT lanes. Thereports discussing “ImplementationProcedures, Policies, Agreements and Barriers”offer particular insight into lessons useful bothfor the I-15’s future and for the developmentof similar projects elsewhere. Some of thesefindings include:■■■■■■Team effort among key stakeholders isimportant for ensuring consensus and maintainingmomentum from project planningto implementation.A local, influential political champion mayexplain why the I-15 project was implementedwhile other value pricing proposalshave not been realized.Strong community outreach efforts to citizens,community groups, and elected officialsmust continue throughout projectplanning, implementation and operation tocommunicate information regarding projectgoals, plans, progress and benefits.Detailed project agreements may be neededto specify the roles and responsibilities ofparticipating agencies and other parties.These should be arranged as early in theproject process as possible, leaving someflexibility for unexpected issues.Dynamic tolling involves significant technicaland administrative complexities. Theproject schedule should budget time to planand implement new technologies, institutionalarrangements and administrative procedures.Reciprocity with other toll agencies isimportant. Data compatibility and revenuetransfer are key issues to work out.7.3.4.Plans for ExpansionGiven the growth in vehicles using I-15 overthe last decade and the success of the FasTrakHOT lanes on the highway, SANDAG andCaltrans are now considering plans to expandcapacity in the I-15 corridor, with emphasis onaccommodating HOV travel. As of early 2002,over 250,000 vehicles a day travel on Interstate15, representing an increase of 100,000 vehiclesper day from 10 years ago. Forecasts sug-FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT89

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencegest that future traffic volumes on I-15 willcontinue to increase, as will the number ofpeople living in San Diego County.The plans under consideration, known as the“I-15 Managed Lanes,” would extend the I-15 HOT lanes north as far as SR 78 inEscondido and would create a 20-mile, twodirectionalmanaged lane facility. The proposalwould use advanced technologies to monitortraffic service on the road, detect problems,and keep vehicles moving. The system wouldallow changing the lane configuration toaccommodate peak directions and would alsoprovide more entry and exit points to thelanes. To evaluate this proposed expansion, aconsultant team is currently studying the proposal’soperational and financial feasibility.An 800-person telephone survey of I-15 usersconducted in fall 2001 indicate that the majorityof motorists support the lanes, and thatmotorists with the most extensive experiencewith the FasTrak lanes are the most ardent supporters.Ninety-one percent of users supportedhaving a time saving option on I-15, and 66percent of I-15 users who do not use theFasTrak lanes support them. Moreover, I-15users overwhelmingly support the facility’sexpansion.7.4US Route 101 Corridor—Marin andSonoma CountiesBackgroundConstructed in the 1950s as a four-lane highway,the US Route 101 corridor throughCalifornia’s Sonoma and Marin Counties hasexperienced significant residential and commercialdevelopment and considerable populationgrowth in recent decades. The corridor providesvital connections for commuters amongMarin, Sonoma, and San Francisco Countiesand is an important link in the regional transportationsystem. As in many corridors servinghigh-growth suburban locations throughoutthe country, increasing numbers of drivers andvehicles together with sharply rising vehiclemilestraveled have produced severe traffic congestionon the roadway.While earlier planning studies had proposedthe addition of new high occupancy vehicle(HOV) lanes in the corridor, scarce fundingprevented the construction of additional lanes.Consequently, in December 1995, theMetropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC)—the region’s metropolitan planningorganization—and the Sonoma CountyTransportation Authority (SCTA) began discussingthe possibility of using tolls to helpfinance a new HOT lane in the corridor. In1997, as part of the FHWA Value Pricing PilotProgram, a study was initiated to examine theproposed addition of priced express lanes inthe median of US 101, from the Marin Countyline to just north of the City of Santa Rosa inSonoma County.Completed in January 1999, the SonomaCounty US 101 Variable Pricing Study foundthat toll lanes in Sonoma County fromWindsor to SR 116 in Petaluma (approximately25 miles) would provide congestion managementbenefits and produce revenue for alloperating and substantial capital costs (Figure27). Although Marin County initially declinedto consider the HOT lanes due to concernsabout additional highway capacity and growthinducement, Marin subsequently decided tostudy HOT lane alternatives also. An additional11.5 mile segment in Marin and Sonomacounties known as the “Novato Narrows” wasexamined in the study US 101 Variable PricingStudy: State Route 37 to the Petaluma RiverBridge. The study found that the extendedlanes would be physically and financially feasible,though as a stand-alone project theywould not perform as well financially as the25-mile Sonoma segment.90 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experience7.4.1Sonoma Study: Approach and FindingsAlthough the Sonoma effort did not invest significanteffort in public outreach, it did addressessential technical aspects of HOT lane feasibility.After preliminary analysis showed that furtherstudy of the HOT lane concept would beuseful, a consultant was brought on to conducta variable pricing study for the corridor, and abudget of $280,000 was established for theeffort.The consultant screened initial alternativesusing the following evaluation criteria, whichbear witness to the multiple objectives ofteninvolved in a HOT lane endeavor:■■■■■■■■■■Congestion and travel time savings fornew and existing lanes;Compatibility with federal/state highwaydesign standards;Capital and operating costs;Enforceability of toll and HOV requirements;Tolling feasibility and effectiveness;Operational impacts to arterials and localstreets;Potential environmental flaws;Ability to enhance corridor transit operations;Equity; andAbility to financeAfter initial screening, two main alternativesand their variations were selected for furtherevaluation. Alternatives 1 and 2 differed primarilyin length of the HOT lane and in the numberof access points. Alternative 1 featured a15-mile facility with the possibility of (1a) fouror (1b) six access locations. Alternative 2 featureda 25-mile facility with the possibility of(2a) five or (2b) eight access locations.The study considered two design alternatives,median lanes and a more expensive optionwhich would upgrade inside and outside freewayshoulders. Capital cost estimates rangedfrom $85 million to $179 million depending●JennerN1Bodega Bay ●P acific OceanWindsor ●101Sebastopol●12 ProposedRoute 101HOT LaneSONOMA CO.MARIN CO.Santa RosaSan Franciscoon the design alternative, and the average operatingand maintenance costs estimates rangedfrom $1.6 to $1.8 million per year.Travel forecasts identified the likely demand foreach alternative in 2005 and 2015. Demandestimates found that 45 percent of the HOVlaneusers would be 2-person carpools and thatto maximize revenue potential, 2-person carpoolsshould be charged the same toll rate assingle occupant vehicles. Carpools of 3+ couldbe allowed to use the lane for free.The feasibility study considered two tollingoptions: (1) a flat per-mile toll that was higherat certain times of day, but remained constantfor all highway segments, and (2) a variableper-mile rate that varied by time of day and bycorridor segment, depending on congestion atspecific locations.Revenue projections found that the variablypriced toll lane would produce more toll revenue,as well as provide more reliable speeds inthe lane. Annual gross revenues from revenue-1●Rohnert Park●●CotatiPetaluma●●Novato12116101San Rafael ●Sonoma●37NAPA CO.SONOMA CO.121SanPabloBayRichmond●580 80● NapaNAPA CO.SOLANO CO.Vallejo ● 80Berkeley●Oakland●Figure 27.Sonoma County Route 101Location MapFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT91

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencemaximizing tolls (using variable tolls) rangedfrom $4.6 million to $5.8 million in 2005,depending on the alternative and variation considered.The study emphasized revenue maximizationas tolls were considered primarily sothe facility could pay for itself.A financial analysis of the four alternatives consideredestimated traffic growth, borrowingcosts, inflation, and the application of a flat orvariable toll. The analysis assumed the toll lanewould be financed using bonds supported bythe lifetime revenues of the facility. The analysisfound that the variable toll generally produceda higher yield and that the variable toll alternativescould actually pay for most or all of abasic HOV lane median widening project and asubstantial portion of the more expensivedesign alternative.The feasibility study also considered whatinstitutional arrangements would be needed tosupport the toll facility. Aside from state-ownedtoll bridges, the state of California operated notoll roads at the time of the study (1997).Thus, an HOV/Toll lane would likely requiresome new institutional arrangements. Thestudy suggested that because the projectedrevenue for the project was substantial, defrayingall of the project’s operating costs and alarge portion of its capital cost, it might bepossible to attract private sector capital. Even ifprivate sector investment were not needed orsought, the report noted that possibilities forprivate sector participation existed in someelements of the project, such as operations andmaintenance.Several possibilities were examined in thestudy:1) Publicly financed, developed, owned andoperated HOV/Toll lanes. Under thisoption, Caltrans would develop, finance,own and operate the HOV/toll lanes. Firstcall on the funds would be for facility maintenanceand operations. The net toll revenueswould be available for further corridorimprovements.2) Private or public/private finance, ownershipor operation. The report suggests that,if the corridor continues to suffer from limitedaccess to new funding, the facility couldrely on toll revenues for its developmentand finance. A number of ownership andoperating relationships could be used toengage the private sector. The pattern ofownership would affect risk-sharing, financingterms, and access to types of financialinstruments. Options would include:■■■Build-Own-Operate (BOO) and Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT);Build-Transfer-Operate (BTO) and;Partial Ownership and Operation &Maintenance Agreements.Because there has been no movement toimplement the HOT lane proposal, these institutionalframeworks have not received furtherconsideration.7.4.2The Marin Study: Approach and FindingsOnce the Sonoma County study establishedthe potential feasibility of toll lanes on US 101,Marin County was encouraged to evaluate thepotential for HOT lanes on an additional 11.5-mile segment in Marin and Sonoma countiesknown as the “Novato Narrows.” That study,US 101 Variable Pricing Study: State Route 37to the Petaluma River Bridge, also found thatthe lanes would be physically and financiallyfeasible.The variable pricing study conducted for theMarin-Sonoma section of US 101 considered ano-build alternative along with (A) north- andsouthbound free HOV lanes, (B) north- andsouthbound tolled and buffered HOV lanes,(C) one reversible free HOV lane, and (D) onereversible tolled HOV lane. The analysis identifiedtravel demand forecasts for the years 2005and 2015, capital costs, operations and mainte-92 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencenance costs, and the operational feasibility ofeach scenario. For the tolled scenarios (B) and(D), the study analyzed revenue generationusing variable tolls that would optimize revenueand regulate demand, so the lanes wouldretain travel time savings to attract motorists.Considering the effects on congestion, thestudy found that when compared with the basecase/no build scenario, both the free and thetolled HOV lane options provided substantialtravel time savings to users (approximately 10-12 minutes over the 11.5 miles) and significantlyincreased person-throughput.Like the Sonoma study before it, this analysisalso considered (1) a flat tolling option thatchanged by time of day only and (2) a variabletoll that changed by time of day and by corridorsegment, depending on congestion levels.Like the Sonoma study, the variable toll in thiscase was also expected to generate slightlyhigher revenue although it would not producea significantly different performance level comparedwith the “flat” time-of-day toll.A unique component of the Marin study wasthe assumption that passenger rail servicewould be operating in the proposed HOT lanecorridor in 2015. Citizens in Marin and neighboringcounties have called for establishingpassenger transit service using theNorthwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way inthe US 101 corridor. Although no definitiveplans have been adopted for the right-of-way,the Marin study considered the effect of theproposed toll lane on rail ridership, concludingthat the travel time savings offered by the freeHOV lane or toll lane options would likelydivert a small number of potential rail riders tothe highway.Another prominent issue that arose in thisstudy was anti-growth sentiment. In MarinCounty, proposed highway expansions havereceived intense public scrutiny over potentialgrowth inducement. The US 101 HOT laneproposal also raised such concerns in Sonoma.Resistance to growth and sprawl subsequentlyinfluenced the selection of proposed accesspoints for the Sonoma HOT lanes, as accesspoints were discouraged in rural and otherareas where growth was not desired. Thisinstance suggests the importance of addressinglocal concerns in HOT lane proposals andplans, and also shows how HOT facilities andlocal land use plans might be coordinated tosteer growth toward some areas and away fromothers.7.4.3Lessons LearnedAlthough both feasibility studies indicated theencouraging potential of HOT lanes on US101, toll lanes have not been advanced.Understanding why provides insight into thepolitical and public dimensions of HOT laneprojects that can determine whether an innovativeproject like toll lanes is advanced.While elected officials showed interest in tolledhigh occupancy vehicle lanes for the US 101corridor and funded two studies to determinetheir feasibility, HOT lanes came to be viewedas a funding measure of last resort. There wasskepticism among officials that the publicwould accept tolled highway lanes. Moreover,at the same time that variable pricing initiativeswere studied for the 101 corridor, local officialsalso sought funding for US 101 improvementsthrough sales tax referenda in Sonoma andMarin Counties.Officials considered a sales tax a more conventionaland palatable way to raise money for theneeded lanes, because the public was morefamiliar with this financing method. However,voters rejected sales tax initiatives in 1998(Sonoma and Marin) and in 2000 (Sonoma).Another sales tax referendum may appear onthe Sonoma County ballot in 2002.Additionally, local officials also sought statefunding for the highway widening, and, partialFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT93

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencestate funding for some segments has since beensecured. The 1998 Regional TransportationPlan allocated some funding to widen Highway101 in Sonoma County, building carpool lanesalong more than two-thirds the length ofHighway 101 between the Marin County lineand Windsor. While the additional fundingneeded to complete the project is uncertain,local officials have not pursued the tollingoption, and the variable pricing studies havenot been publicly promoted.As a matter financial pragmatism, the concurrentpursuit by local government of tollingstudies, dedicated sales tax, and state grants tofund the proposed road improvements is logical;however it may have hampered the advanceof a toll lane initiative in this case. For the timebeing, the local political leadership seems reluctantto initiate public discussion of tolls on the101 while voters are also considering sales taxmeasures. As with many HOT lane initiatives,there is also general hesitation to pursue atolling plan that may be perceived as anothertax rather than as another travel option.Public outreach regarding tolled express laneson the US 101 has also been extremely limited.Public input was sought during the feasibilitystudy process, but this was accomplishedlargely through a 25-member advisory committeecomposed of members of business, environmental,and labor groups, political representatives,and civic groups. Study sponsorschose not to widely publicize or promote theHOT lane concept, and the absence of a visibleand vocal public champion created an additionalhurdle for the Sonoma 101 HOT laneproposal.7.5The Denver Value Express LaneFeasibility StudyBackgroundThe planning for high occupancy toll lanes inDenver, Colorado, provides a unique casestudy demonstrating the important role playedby state legislation in stimulating interest inHOT lane solutions. Unlike cases where theimpetus for a HOT project or proposal arosefrom congested conditions on a specific facility,the Denver example was greatly accelerated bya piece of state legislation and the state legislatorwho championed it. Independently, theColorado Department of Transportation(CDOT) had begun investigating the conversionof I-25 lanes north of Denver from HOVoperation to HOT operation, in order to betterutilize that facility.In 1999, one Colorado state senator initiatedefforts to launch a bill designed to address theunderutilization of high-occupancy vehiclelanes in the state. The bill, known as SenateBill 88 (SB 88) and supported by a number ofother state legislators, aimed to legislate theapplication of value pricing to make fuller useof under-utilized HOV lanes in the state. Thebill’s sponsor pointed in particular to severalHOV facilities in the Denver metropolitan areathat often operated below capacity. Theseincluded HOV lanes on I-25 north of Denver,US 36 connecting Denver and Boulder, andon Santa Fe Drive.Passed in 1999 with support of CDOT, SB 88mandated the CDOT to examine the desirabilityand feasibility of implementing high occupancytoll lanes. The bill required CDOT tosolicit expressions of interest in converting anexisting HOV lane to a HOT lane using a privatecontractor. In absence of a qualified bidderto operate the lane, CDOT would possiblyhave to undertake the operation of the HOTfacility. Precisely these points of the bill make itunique: (1) The bill did not seek simply toopen the HOV lanes for use as general purposelanes, but rather acknowledged the availablecapacity on the HOV lanes as a resource and acommodity; and (2) The bill required CDOTto seek the participation of the private sector inthe conversion from an HOV-lane to a HOTfacility. In fact, the senator who championed94 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencethe bill noted that using a privatecontractor to convert and operatethe lane would spare taxpayers theassociated financial obligations.With the assistance of CDOT’s valuepricing expert, the state senator wasable to forge a unique coalition,including the environmental communityand trucking interests, thatwas essential in getting the billpassed.As in other U.S. metropolitan areasthat have begun to examine thepotential application of HOT facilitiesin their transportation network,growth has been a primary factorleading Denver to consider HOTlanes. From 1990 to 1996, populationin the Denver metropolitan areaincreased 14.5 percent to 2.13 millionpeople. Some project populationto grow another 30 percent by2020, and employment in the regionis expected to increase 35 percent by2020. At the same time, vehiclemiles traveled have increased at amuch higher rate, rising 5.2 percentannually from 1990 to 1995.Boulder40 70 470N36 70WestminsterLakewoodProposedI-25/U.S. 36HOT LaneCorridor6FederalHeightsEnglewood 25 76ThorntonCommerceCity 270DenverAurora 225 25Pena BlvdDenverInternationalAirport✈ 76 70 70287 402874085470East470East4707.5.1The Value Express Lane Feasibility StudyIn June 1999, CDOT launched the ValueExpress Lanes Study to examine the potentialapplication of HOT lanes in the Denver metropolitanarea. As indicated in the statute thatprompted the study, the policy premise underlyingValue Express Lanes is to maximize theuse of HOV lanes by allowing SOV drivers topay to use them, while also maintaining theincentive to carpool and take the bus. Fundingfor the study came from CDOT and theFederal Highway Administration, and studypartners included the Regional TransportationDistrict (RTD), the Denver Regional Councilof Governments (DRCOG), and the US 36Transportation Management Organization (US36 TMO).The study included two phases. The first phasewould assess the potential application of HOTlanes in a number of corridors throughout theDenver region, including Adams, Arapahoe,Boulder, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson counties.The aim of this macro study was to identifycandidates that could be recommended forfuture project and corridor planning effortsand more focused feasibility studies. The secondphase involved a more detailed feasibilityanalysis of HOT lanes on US 36 and north I-25’s existing HOV facility.Figure 28.Proposed I-25/U.S. 36 HOTLane Corridor LocationMapFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT95

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experience7.5.2The Regional AssessmentThe first step in identifying candidate HOTfacility projects involved a broad look at corridorsin and around the Denver metropolitanarea. This regional assessment consisted ofidentifying and screening twelve potential corridorsin order to select candidates for moreadvanced feasibility studies. This first cut proceededwith steps to:1. Identify potential candidate corridors;2. Develop a criteria matrix;3. Collect corridor data; and4. Evaluate the corridors.After identifying the twelve corridors to bestudied, located within CDOT’s Denver metropolitanregion, criteria were developed bywhich each candidate corridor could be evaluated.For each criterion, each candidate corridorreceived a score of high, medium, or low.The criteria addressed the factors that mightmake a corridor more suitable for HOT laneapplication. They included:(1) Traffic/excess capacity: Traffic conditionson each corridor were examined, includingpeak hour volume to capacity, estimated dailyhours of congestion, and the length of thecongested portion of the facility. High scoringcorridors exhibited a peak hour volume tocapacity ratio of 0.9 to 1.0 or greater, experiencedcongestion for at least 2 hours in theAM or PM peak, and had congested segmentsthat stretched for 5 to 10 miles.(2) Corridor/Transportation Planning: Thiscriterion examined current planning efforts foreach corridor. Corridors scored higher whereshort- and long-term investments under considerationincluded or could include an HOVlanealternative.(3) Right of Way: The study assumed thatValue Express Lanes would not take away generalpurpose lanes, implying that any HOTfacility application would require new capacity.For this reason, the availability of right of wayin the candidate corridors was an importantconsideration. Corridors received higher scoresfor this factor when they had adequate right ofway to construct additional lanes or when onlya small amount of right of way would need tobe acquired to accommodate a HOT lane.(4) Design considerations: This criterion consideredhow each proposed corridor could connectwith the larger transportation network.Candidates that received higher scores werethose corridors that would or could connect toother existing HOV facilities; link to otherfacilities and freely accept traffic from and/orsupply traffic to those facilities, and absorb andintegrate traffic accepted at entry points.(5) Travel behavior: This factor consideredtravel patterns in each corridor. Corridors thatserved commuter travel characterized by heavyflows in a peak-dominant direction or thatserved a large proportion of long distance tripswere considered better candidates.These criteria make clear how a HOT facilitymight be expected to perform in the Region.Additionally, assumptions outlined in thescreening analysis also make clear some of thepolicy choices underlying the study. For example,the study assumes that a HOT applicationwould be most compatible with an existing orplanned HOV lane, that buses and carpoolswould be expected to use the HOT facility forfree, and that some recurring congestion isnecessary in order for travelers to be willing topay a toll to avoid the congestion. Also, thestudy explicitly notes that a HOT lane cannotreplace an existing general purpose lane, howeverwhere a new general purpose lane is currentlyplanned a HOT lane should be consideredin future alternatives analysis. The studyalso notes that costs were not used in this firstscreening, given the assumption that few HOTlanes would recover the full cost of addinglanes through tolling.96 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane ExperienceAfter relevant data about each corridor was collectedand reviewed, each corridor was assessedfor its suitability to serve as a Value ExpressLanes candidate. Three corridors scored in thehigh range, indicating potentially high compatibilitywith Value Express Lanes.■ US 36 (Boulder Turnpike) from I-25 toBoulder■ North I-25 from US 36 to 120th Ave.■ C-470 from Wadsworth to I-25These corridors showed sufficient promise forHOT lane application due to their high trafficvolumes, high proportion of longer trips,encouraging forecasts for carpool and bus use,and/or sufficient right of way to accommodatea HOT lane.7.5.3The I-25 and US 36 CorridorPhase two of the Value Express Lanes Studylooked specifically at the I-25 /US 36 corridorleading from downtown Denver to Boulder,linking two of the three largest employmentcenters in the Denver region (Figure 28). Thecorridor is heavily used by regional transit service,and the US 36 portion was recently thesubject of a major investment study that recommendedbus rapid transit, regional rail, roadimprovements and a bikeway for the corridor.The challenge of the Value Express LanesStudy was to consider a HOT application onthis facility that acknowledged recent US 36MIS recommendations and could meet existingcommitments to level of service B on I-25’sDowntown Express.Since 1995, I-25 has hosted the FTA fundedDowntown Express Bus/HOV facility. Thefacility has experienced tremendous growth inusers since its opening. Three years after opening,it carried 7,000 vehicles per weekday,almost twice as many as when it first opened.By 1998, daily ridership counting bus passengersand carpoolers totaled over 24,000 peopleper day. Because this facility was built with federalfunds, the RTD is obligated to meet levelof service B for buses and carpools.The US 36 corridor connects to North I-25and leads northwest to Boulder. Regional transitservice on US 36 also carries significant ridershipserving Denver and Boulder. Residentialand employment growth in the center of thecorridor continue to place new travel demandson the roadway. In 1998 by the RegionalTransportation District (RTD) began a collaborativeeffort to identify potential solutions tolong-term transportation needs in the corridor.The US 36 Major Investment Study (MIS)involved representatives from US 36 communities,CDOT, local agencies, regional agencies,federal agencies, and special interest groups. Itidentified as a locally preferred alternative apackage of corridor improvements includingbus rapid transit (BRT)/high occupancy vehiclelanes (HOV), regional rail (a double-track,starter rail system), roadway improvements anda bikeway.The Value Express Lanes Feasibility Study proposesconversion of the I-25/US 36 HOVfacility to a HOT facility or Value ExpressLanes. The study proposes that the bus rapidtransit improvement planned for US 36 beconstructed as a HOT facility, and it proposesin general to maintain the advantage of transitand carpooling in the corridor by instituting ahierarchy among users of the facility. This proposedhierarchy would prioritize vehicles onthe facility from highest to lowest, favoringbuses and transit, then vanpools or three-pluscarpools, then two-person carpools, then lowemissionvehicles, and finally single-occupantvehicles (toll payers). The study also stipulatesthat tolls would be collected by electronic tollcollection (ETC) technology.Three conceptual alternatives were studied inorder to consider a range of interventions toimplement a HOT facility in the corridor. Afterexamining minimum, moderate, and maximuminvestment alternatives, each promising aFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT97

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experiencegreater level of HOT facility use and revenuereturn, the study concluded generally that:■■■■The “Value Express Lanes” concept wouldbe technically feasible on the I-25 and US36 HOV facilities. The lanes could beimplemented with no detrimental effect onexisting carpool and bus level of service.Value Express Lanes are financially feasibleon I-25 and US 36 HOV facilities; theywould raise enough revenue to coverexpenses, including annual operations,enforcement and maintenance, as well ascapital costs associated with tolling. Itwould take roughly six years for the facilityto break even, according to financialestimates.The minimum investment alternative shouldbe implemented in the short-term, whilethe feasibility of the more significant alternativesis analyzed further.Although public surveys did not indicatemore than marginal support for the ValueExpress Lanes, the public did express frustrationwith “empty HOV lanes” and therewas often support for the HOT applicationas a way to maximize use of the existinglanes.7.5.4Public OutreachSimilar to the case of SR 91 in SouthernCalifornia, the Denver Value Express LanesFeasibility Study included a significant effort toassess commuter opinions, attitudes and ideasabout the possible implementation of a HOTfacility in the region. Public outreach effortsincluded ten employer-based focus groups heldin two rounds, one random digit dialing telephonesurvey that reached roughly 450respondents, and ten open focus group sessionsfor commuters that travel on the segments ofUS 36 and I-25 North identified as mostpromising for Value Express Lane implementationin phase one of the study.Based on this outreach to employers, commuters,and the general public, study sponsorsconcluded that while general support for theHOT concept was only marginal, people feltimpatient with underutilized HOV lanes andoften supported the Value Express Lanes conceptas a means of maximizing use of HOVlanes.Some other key findings from the surveys andfocus groups include:■■Most drivers in the Denver metro area areadversely affected by traffic. At least onceper week, most drivers find themselves stuckin traffic. Nearly one-third of all drivers findthemselves stuck in traffic and late for workin a typical week.There seems to be a learning curve amongthe public regarding HOT lanes. Some participantsin the focus groups became moresupportive of the concept as they understoodmore about the possible transportationimprovements and the funding for thefacilities. Discussing real life examples suchas San Diego’s I-15 HOT lane or SR 91’sFasTrak helped participants to understandthe concept.The Colorado Department of Transportation has mounted a websitedevoted to the Value Express Lanes Feasibility Study. Found athttp://www.valuelanes.com/, this site is extremely valuable for the wealth ofstudy documents that are available for download. Four separate reportsdescribe the commuter and employer focus groups as well as the telephoneinterviews conducted for the study. These documents include detailedanalysis of participant responses, original survey and questionnaire instruments,and descriptions of methodologies used.■■Drivers identified benefits to include moretrip flexibility and choice, time savings, andreduced stress.Participants expressed concern about thefairness of restricting lane use to those whocould pay when the original HOV lane waspaid for with tax dollars. Others alsoexpressed concern that a HOT facility was98 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7Current HOT Lane Experience■■only a temporary solution because their limitedavailable capacity would be used asgrowth in the region continued.People had different opinions about the useof toll revenues. Some thought it shouldsupport road improvements and others,transit. Some did not want the tolls to beabsorbed into general government revenue.When queried, roughly two-thirds of participantsfelt potential Value Express Lanesshould be operated by a public entity ratherthan a private organization.Although the US 36/I-25 HOT lane proposalwas still under consideration by FHWA’s ValuePricing Pilot Program in mid-2002, this typeof preliminary outreach can lay the groundworkfor successful implementation of HOTprojects in the future. Project sponsors nowhave a firmer understanding of public reactionsto HOT lane and variable pricing concepts.Sponsors also know more about the circumstancesunder which the public might considerusing such a facility.7.5.5Next StepsSince the completion of the Value ExpressLanes Feasibility Study, CDOT submitted anapplication to the FHWA Value Pricing PilotProgram for design, construction, maintenanceand monitoring of the facility, however FHWAhad not yet acted on the application as of mid-2002. The cost of the project may create somecomplications, as the HOT conversion in theentire corridor depends on the $11 millionHOV lane project that must occur on I-25first.Locally, all relevant policy players at CDOT,RTD, the City of Denver, and the DenverRegional Council of Governments (COG), aswell as FTA and FHWA, have indicated somelevel of support of the proposal, and a group ofofficials from these agencies is currently examiningtechnical issues associated with theproject.A separate recommendation of the ValueExpress Lanes Feasibility Study was thatCDOT should explore yet other opportunitiesfor Value Express Lanes. In particular, it recommendeda feasibility assessment for a HOTfacility on C-470, one of the corridors identifiedthat scored well in the initial assessment oftwelve regional corridors.CDOT has applied for and received FY ‘01federal funding for studying HOT lanes in thiscorridor. The Value Pricing Pilot Program willprovide $500K for a feasibility analysis similarto that conducted for the US 36/I-25 corridor.As of early 2002, CDOT was preparing torelease a Request for Proposals to solicit consultanthelp with the study.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT99

Chapter 8A Guide to HOT LaneDevelopment—Lessons Learned8.1RationaleAgainst the backdrop of increasing roadwaycongestion in major urban areas, a decline inmode share for car pools, and expanded implementationof HOV networks, HOT lanes representa promising opportunity to provide newand enhanced mobility options for motoristsand transit users on congested highwaycorridors.■■HOT operations can maximize the efficiencyof existing highway capacity by increasingthe volumes on HOV facilities withoutdegrading levels of service. The value ofexisting HOV facilities is maintained andadditional service is offered.HOT lanes can provide reliable, uncongestedservice levels for non-HOV motoristswho are willing to pay the price.This combination of features demonstrates thepromise of managing existing or new capacityin metropolitan areas. HOT lane networks providea richer array of mobility services to carpoolers,transit riders, urgent trip makers andother users. In addition they generate a newsource of revenue which can be used to offsettheir implementation costs and support othertransportation improvements, includingenhanced transit service.8.2RequisitesGiven that the HOT lane concept is relativelynew and has not yet been widely deployed, it isimportant to recognize the contexts into whichHOT lanes can be most effectively introduced.These include:■■■■High density corridors typical of larger metropolitanarea with limited travel optionsand a lack of parallel highway routes wherea new HOT facility can appeal to severaltravel markets;Newly created HOV facilities where HOToperations can maximize use of the expandedlane capacity;Congested HOV facilities where a transitionfrom HOV 2 to HOV 3 eligibility providesavailable capacity for HOT users; andUnderutilized HOV facilities where payingSOV users can utilize the excess capacitywith level of service maintained by pricing.While it is possible to allow limited scale HOTlane use on single-lane HOV facilities, it ispreferable to implement HOT operations onfacilities providing more than one travel laneper direction.8.3BenefitsHOT lanes bring a wide variety of benefits tothe driving public and transit users alike. Whenapplied in conjunction with other managementtools and the sensible, targeted provision ofadditional lane capacity, HOT lanes have thepotential to afford significant improvements incongested travel corridors. The primary benefitsof HOT lanes are that they provide thedriving public with a new choice—premiumand predictable travel conditions—on corridorswere conditions would otherwise be congested.At the same time they maximize the use ofmanaged lanes—including HOV lanes—withoutcausing traffic service to fall below desiredlevels. These powerful dynamics also afford awide range of related benefits, including:■■Superior, consistent, and dependable traveltimes, particularly during peak travelperiods;New revenue sources that can be used tosupport the construction of the HOT lanes100 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 8A Guide to HOT Lane Development—Lessons Learned■themselves or other initiatives, such asimproved transit service;Traffic service improvements on congestedparallel general-purpose highway lanes bydrawing vehicles off parallel local streets andimproving corridor-wide mobility;Additional public opinion research conductedaround the country demonstrates that the publicunderstands the value pricing concept andthat a majority of motorists in many congestedareas would be willing to pay for improvedtravel conditions. These results suggest that thepublic at large may be more willing than politicalleaders to support new HOT lane projects.■■■Faster highway trips for transit vehicles thatmay encourage expanded express busservice;Environmental advantages by providingopportunities to encourage carpooling,improve transit service, and move morepeople in fewer vehicles at faster speeds; andIncreased efficiency of managed lane facilitiesmaking them attractive in regions thatmight not otherwise consider them andeliminating potential pressure to convertunder performing HOV lanes to generalpurposeuse.8.4Lessons LearnedDespite its many benefits, the HOT concepthas generated spirited debate among transportationprofessionals, politicians, and publicadvocates. Most of these discussions havefocused on the public’s willingness to pay forpremium travel conditions in congested highwaycorridors and the perceived equity issuesinvolved in providing such service to thosewho choose to pay for it.Extensive survey efforts demonstrate that thefour existing HOT facilities are popular withlocal motorists. Moreover this support is consistentamong motorists of all income levels,including both those who use existing HOTlanes on a regular basis and those who do not.Experience has show that most motorists useHOT facilities on a selective basis when trippurpose justifies the expense—regardless ofincome.Effective public outreach is essential in garneringsupport for the HOT lanes and must continuethroughout project planning, implementationand operation. New concepts such asHOT lanes are heavily dependent on the supportof respected public figures who are willingto act as vocal project champions. They mayinclude elected officials, community advocates,or private sector leaders who are recognizedconsensus builders. Experience demonstratesthat a single champion can “make or break” aHOT project.There are a number of other lessons that canbe culled from the nation’s collective experienceto date, including several key conceptualand institutional findings:■■■■■■HOV conversions may often be the mostattractive approach for implementing HOTlanes;A team effort among key stakeholders isimportant gaining consensus and maintainingmomentum from project planning toimplementation;A variety of public institutional and privatesponsors can develop HOT lane projects;Enabling legislation and interagency agreementsspecifying roles and responsibilitiesare often needed;Decisions on issues such as tolling structures,occupancy requirements, and technologymay require interagency coordination;Dynamic tolling may require HOT lanesponsors to develop new technologies, institutionalarrangements and administrativeprocedures;FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT101

Chapter 8A Guide to HOT Lane Development—Lessons Learned■■Reciprocity with other toll agencies isadvantageous and should include data compatibilityand revenue transfer capabilities;andPrivate funding brings access to new capitalfunds, but private debt service costs may behigher than those for public agencies.With four HOT lane facilities operating in theUntied States in mid-2002, the potential of theHOT lane concept is not yet fully recognizedand may not be considered in some situationswhere it could be appropriate. The HOT laneconcept provides a cost-effective opportunityto allow the nation’s extensive HOV andexpress lane networks to be managed and operatedmore efficiently. HOT lanes provide newopportunities for transit vehicles, HOVs, andother paying motorists to avoid congestedhighway lanes, while at the same time easingcongestion on parallel general purpose lanes.Moreover, in addition to enhancing mobility atthe corridor level, HOT lanes also generatenew revenue streams that can be used to payfor their own implementation or to supportother transportation improvements includingtransit service enhancements.Professional and policy communities in theUnited States are just beginning to recognizethe powerful benefits HOT lanes provide andbuild on the nation’s initial HOT lane experiments.It is hoped that the information containedin the guide will encourage continuedexpansion of the concept.102 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

GlossaryAutomatic Vehicle Identification (AVI): A technologysystem using transponders on vehicles andoutside sensors to determine if vehicles on toll lanesare carrying a valid transponder and what the vehicle’sclassification is (truck vs. passenger car, SOV vs.HOV). This system also processes the appropriatetoll transaction based on the information.Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR): The ratio of a project’spresent value benefits to its present value costs. TheBCR is useful for comparing projects of differentscale or financial size since it assesses economicefficiency.Closed Circuit Television (CCTV): A video monitoringand security system used to provide continuoustraffic monitoring by the facility operator alongthe length of the facility and particularly at points ofentry and tolling locations.Detector Loops (Loop Detector Amplifiers): AnAVC system component imbedded in the pavementand used to detect and classify the type of vehiclespassing over them. The loops are linked to the lanecontroller and can be used individually to count trafficor to trigger the violation enforcement camerasor in tandem to measure vehicle speeds.Differential Pricing (Variable Pricing): Time-ofdaypricing and tolls that vary by other factors likefacility location, season, day-of-week, or air qualityimpact.Dynamic Pricing: Tolls that vary in real time inresponse to changing congestion levels, as opposedto variable pricing that follows a fixed schedule.Economic Rate of Return (ERR): The economicrate of return (ERR), sometimes referred to as theinternal rate of return, gives the effective discountrate for which the project’s benefits would just equalits costs, in present value terms. In other words, it isthe discount rate that yields a BCR of 1.0.Electronic Toll Collection (ETC): Systems deployingvarious communications and electronic technologiesto support the automated collection of paymentat toll booths and other collection points.Collectively, the application of these technologiesincrease system throughput, improve customer service,enhance safety, and reduce environmentalimpacts.Express Lanes: A lane or set of lanes physically separatedor barriered from the general-purpose capacityprovided within major roadway corridors. Expresslane access is managed by limiting the number ofentranced and exit points to the facility. Expresslanes may be operated as reversible flow facilities orbi-directional facilities.E-ZPass: An electronic toll collection technologydeployed by a regional consortium of transportationagencies in Delaware, New Jersey and New York.The technology is compatible with similar systemsused by tolling agencies in several northeasternstates. Plans call for the deployment of E-ZPass onmore than 700 toll lanes along 415 miles of roads,tunnels and bridges in the Northeast United States.Fees for Entering: These are tolls charged to vehiclesentering a particular facility or an area but whichdo not depend on the distance traveled on the facilityor in the area.High-Occupancy Toll Lanes (HOT lanes):Managed, limited-access, and normally barrierseparatedhighway lanes that provide free or reducedcost access to HOVs, and also make excess capacityavailable to other vehicles not meeting occupancyrequirements at a market price.High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV): A passengervehicle carrying more than a specified minimumnumber of passengers, such as an automobile carryingmore than one or more than two people. HOVsinclude carpools and vanpools, as well as buses.HOV Lane: An exclusive traffic lane or facility limitedto carrying HOVs and certain other qualifiedvehicles.Inherently Low Emission Vehicles (ILEV):Alternative fuel, clean air vehicles. Certain states(e.g. California) have authorized the use of ILEVs inHOV lanes regardless of occupancy (Assembly Bill71). Related terms include Zero-Emission vehicles(ZEVs), Ultra-Low-Emission (ULEV), and Super-Ultra-Low-Emission (SULEV) vehicles powered byalternative fuels.Incident Management: Managing forms of nonrecurringcongestion, such as spills, collisions,immobile vehicles, or any other impediment tosmooth, continuous flow of traffic on freeways.Infrared Light Curtains: An ETC system componentinstalled in pairs to sense the separationbetween two vehicles passing through a lane, as wellas height depending on the number of beamsdeployed. The information passed on to the lanecontroller is used in conjunction with the loopdetectors to support the correct grouping of axlesand to identify large trucks or vehicles pullingtrailers.Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): Abroad range of diverse technologies such as informationprocessing, communications, control, and electronicswhich can help transportation systems inmany ways, including congestion management.FHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT103

GlossaryInteroperability: The ability to provide of reciprocalprivileges for users of electronic toll collectionsystems on other facilities equipped with ETCsystems.Lane Controller: A micro processor ETC componentthat coordinates the activities of all equipmentin a single lane and generates the transactionsassigned to individual customers using that lane.Lane Management Tools:Access—Limiting or metering vehicle ingress tothe lane or spacing access so that demand cannotoverwhelm HOT lane capacity. See also LimitedAccess.Eligibility—Limiting lane use to specific types ofusers, such as HOVs, motorcycles, low emissionvehicles, or trucks. For most typical HOT lanesettings, eligibility requirements would be usedduring selected hours or at specific access ramps.Pricing—Imposing a user fee on a lane that helpsregulate demand by time of day or day of week.The fee increases during periods of highestdemand.Level-of-Service (LOS): Also knows as “TrafficService,” LOS is a qualitative measure describingoperational conditions within a traffic stream. LOSassesses conditions in terms of speed and travel time,freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfortand convenience, and safety. Six levels of service aredefined by letter designations from A to F, withLOS A representing the best operating conditions,and LOS F the worst.Limited Access: Access management used to restrictentry to a facility based upon facility congestion levelsor operational condition, such as the presence ofan accident or maintenance activities. Access may berestricted by 1) metering signals, or 2) limiting thenumber of entrances and exits. Some restrictedaccess lanes include HOV priority.Managed Lane: A lane or lanes designed and operatedto achieve stated goals by managing access viauser group, pricing, or other criteria. A managedlane facility typically provides improved travel conditionsto eligible users.Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO):Federally mandated regional organizations responsiblefor comprehensive transportation planning andprogramming for in urbanized areas. Work productsinclude the Transportation Plan, the TransportationImprovement Program, and the Unified PlanningWork Program.Mileage-Based Fee: A vehicular toll based on thevehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the jurisdiction.Mixed-Flow: Combined flow of HOV vehicles andSOV vehicles.Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax: Federal and state taxeslevied on gasoline and other fuels.Open Road Tolling: Fully automated electronictolling in an open road environment allowing vehiclesto travel at normal speeds when passing throughtoll collection points.Price Elasticity of Demand: A measure of the sensitivityof demand for a commodity to a change inits price. It equals the percentage change in consumptionof the commodity that results from a onepercentchange in its price. The greater the elasticity,the more price-sensitive the demand for the commodity.Queue Jump: Elevated ramps or at-grade lanes thatcan be used by motorists stopped in traffic to bypasscongestion.Reversible Flow: Lanes than can be operated inreverse direction to reduce congestion during certainpeak periods.Revenue Neutral: Revenue-neutral pricing strategiesinvolve rebating some or all of the revenue generatedby pricing to toll payers, where generatingrevenue is not an objective of value pricing.Road Pricing: An umbrella phrase that covers allcharges imposed on those who use roadways. Theterm includes such traditional revenue sources asfuel taxes and license fees as well as charges that varywith time of day, the specific road used, and vehiclesize and weight.Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV): A vehicle occupiedby only one person.Time-of-day Pricing: Facility tolls that vary bytime-of-day in response to varying congestion levels.Typically, such tolls are higher during peak periodswhen the congestion is most severe. Many sectors ofthe economy (telephone, electric utilities, and airlines)use such pricing to manage demand withinthe available capacity.Toll Road: A road or section of road wheremotorists are charged a fee (or toll).Toll Violation Camera: Fixed, short range, stillcameras used to obtain single frame pictures whichare deployed in individual lanes at tolling points.Toll violation cameras are aimed and focused toobtain images of the license plates of violatingvehicles.Transponder: An electronic tag mounted on alicense plate, built into a vehicle, or placed on thedashboard. The tag is read electronically by an electronictolling device that automatically assesses theamount of the user fee.Transportation Demand Management (TDM):Asctions that improve transportation system efficien-104 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Glossarycy by altering system demand using such strategiesand facilities as: pricing, ridesharing; park-and-ridefacilities; transit friendly development/zoning; andemployer-based programs, such as staggered workhours and telecommuting. TDM programs improvethe efficiency of existing facilities by changingdemand patterns rather than embarking on capitalimprovements.Transportation System Management (TSM):Integrated protocols and computerized ITS systemsused to manage roadway and transit facilities. TSMtechniques improve system capacity without physicalexpansion or behavioral changes. Typical TSMmeasures involve continuous management and operationof traffic systems, and utilize integrated trafficcontrol systems, incident management programs,and traffic control centers.Treadle: A pressure-sensitive device inserted in thepavement designed for directional counting of vehicleaxles passing over them. These sensors are usedas inputs to the lane controller to provide informationon axle count and vehicle direction of travel,depending on the order in which the stripes are hit.User Management: User management defines howand which types of users can utilize a facility, such asHOV occupancy requirements, access points, barrierseparation, and user fees. Restrictions may vary bytime of day or day of the week.Value Pricing: Value pricing is a concept that usesmonetary incentives to manage congestion duringpeak travel periods on tolled highways and crossingfacilities.Variable Message Signs (VMS): Electronic signagethat employs ITS technology and centralized controlsystems to change messages in real time, providingmotorists with timely and useful information.Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT): Total vehiclehours expended traveling on the roadway networkin a specified area during a specified time period.Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): The measurementof the total miles traveled by all vehicles in a specifiedarea during a specified time.Vehicle Enforcement Systems (VES): Manual andcomputer systems used to enforce vehicle andmotorist compliance with the usage guidelines forHOT lanesVehicle Separators/Profilers: An AVI system componentlocated on a gantry or at the side of a lane.They perform functions similar to light curtains.The class of vehicles is determined based on the profileof the passing vehicle.Video Surveillance: The use of pan-tilt-zoom,steerable moving picture cameras to survey a tollplaza, ETC collection area, or a segment of roadwayto monitor for incidents.Several glossary definitions were prepared by theTransportation Research Board’s Joint Subcommitteeon PricingFHWAA GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT105

IndexAaccess points, 4, 34, 40, 46, 51, 71advisory committee, 32, 33, 94air quality, 3, 33, 63Automatic Vehicle Classification, 49Bbenefit-cost ratio, 61bonds, 31, 55, 58, 78, 85Ccapital costs, 60, 72, 90consensus building, 8, 9, 23, 32, 36Eelectronic toll collection (ETC), 3, 4, 11, 27, 31, 48enforcement, 19, 31, 40, 48, 68-70video enforcement, 50equity, 9, 11, 21, 24, 28-30excess capacity, 6E-Z Pass, 31FFasTrak, 5, 31, 83-84, 87-90Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 14, 57, 74, 87Ggrade separated access, 46II-15, 5, 7, 14, 30, 31, 35, 48, 57, 87-90incident management, 8, 70-71infrared light curtains, 49Inland Breeze Bus, 31innovative finance, 59-60Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), 2, 51, 59interoperability, 19Interstate Highway System, 13, 16, 19Interstate Toll Pilot Program, 16KKaty Freeway, 5, 7, 14, 64, 66, 73-80Llane controller, 49, 50lane management, 3, 64-66lane separation, 11, 37-45mountable curb markers, 43tubular markers, 43retractable markers, 43-44lane use signal, 51loop detector, 49, 51, 60Mmanaged capacity, 64-65marketing, 13, 22, 27, 33-35, 76, 88media, 25, 34, 35, 82NNational Environmental Protection Act(NEPA), 21, 62noise, 43, 62, 63non-compete clause, 85-86Ooperating costs, 31, 60, 91operator, 12, 13, 16, 19, 92owner, 12, 13, 16, 19, 84-85, 92Ppenalties 70, 75pricing, 28, 51-60dynamic pricing, 4, 47, 55, 57, 60, 89, 101fixed rate, flat rate, 4, 17point-to-point toll rates, 17value pricing, 3, 17, 25, 51-60Value Pricing Pilot Program, 19private sector participation, 13, 15-16, 86, 92, 94privacy, 31public outreach, 21-36, 76, 79, 82-83, 88-89, 94,98-99public transit, 2, 5-6, 13, 14-15, 25, 31, 57, 73-80,87-90, 97public-private partnership, 17, 63, 81QQuickRide, 5, 64, 73-80Rrevenuebonds backed by, 58-59, 78disposition of, 30-31forecasting, 55, 56, 91-92generation of, 26-27SSection 129 loans, 59signage, 46-48, 47, 60, 68variable message sign, 47-48, 48, 51sponsor, 12-15, 13, 57SR 91, 5, 35, 35, 43, 47, 57, 80-87state funds, 58, 78, 93-94TTEA-21, 16, 19-20, 57, 80tolling authority, 16-17transponder. See Automatic Vehicle ClassificationTransportation Infrastructure Finance andInnovation Act (TIFIA), 59-60travel demand forecasting, 9, 51-54turnpike, 13Uuser fees, 2, 28Vvalue pricing. See pricing106 FHWA A GUIDE FOR HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT

Federal Highway AdministrationUS Department of Transportation400 7th Street, S.W. (HOP)Washington, DC 20590To order a copy of this document contact theITS Toll-Free “Help Line” 866-367-7487www.ops.fhwa.dot.govPublication Number: FHWA-OP-03-009Electronic Document Library (EDL) Number: 13668